One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Posts for: acknowledgeurma
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 55 next>>
Sep 21, 2018 15:54:07   #
debeda wrote:
Some good points. I grew up with mostly boys in the neighborhood, so liked to play baseball, hockey, king of the hill, etc. BUT I also enjoyed being a girl. And when we got older I had about 8 cherished older brothers who'd even babysit for my younger siblings and do my chores ( my mom worked nights) if I had a date. I don't think girls OR boys should be precluded from doing things they enjoy, but the whole women having to act like men to be "good enough" always baffled me. Good enough for what? Though on the other hand, I got a job with the old Ma Bell and was not allowed to have the job I tested for and was hired for because I'd be "too much of a distraction to the men" (The district manager actually said those EXACT words to me). That is also unfair. But these days men are far more discriminated against than women.
Some good points. I grew up with mostly boys in th... (show quote)

I think it's interesting when the loss of some privileged is seen as being discriminated against.
Sep 21, 2018 15:43:42   #
padremike wrote:
I will accept "embellishment" over lie. Did Obama ever lie? How expensive was his pepper? Still in all, Stormy is a porn star and you find her more capable and credible than YOUR president. Don't you think he resembles Arthur Godfrey?

I find Stormy to be more capable and credible in her chosen position, than OUR president's capability and credibility in his chosen position. I think he should have stuck to being a reality TV star who has extramarital affairs with porn stars and playmates (who he then pays to keep quite), instead, he made POTUS a reality TV show.
Sep 21, 2018 15:32:33   #
Tug484 wrote:
How in the world would anyone be able to prove someone yanked on her clothes 36 YEARS ago?
She can't remember the year but she was 15. Surely she could figure that out.

You think it's unusual that Ford cannot remember the year in which she was 15...? What is so out of the ordinary about that? Most people are/were 15 in two different years. I've heard of people who can recall the date of anything that ever happened to them, but that is very unusual. I don't know what year I was 15, that I can "figure that out", doesn't negate my not knowing. To impress myself with my arithmetic skills, I "figured that out", but I've already forgotten.
Sep 16, 2018 10:59:40   #
eagleye13 wrote:

A warning!!!
AND health hint.
Milk causes terrible acne for many young people.

All milk, or just cow's milk?
Sep 14, 2018 15:57:30   #
byronglimish wrote:
Who's Sheldon?

Sheldon J. Plankton is owner of The Chum Bucket (major rival to the Krusty Krab), and nemesis to Eugene H. Krab.
Sep 14, 2018 15:50:57   #
gaconservative74 wrote:
I never said you know or don’t know anything. I am saying an atheist must own up to the fact that if all is by chance that there is no good and bad and no right and wrong. All is completely and totally relative.

Look, you sound like a fine person and it IS morally right do do what you have said you do, love your wife, raise your kids right, etc, what I’m saying is that as an atheist, you can’t claim it as right or wrong. As Solomon said, all of life is folly apart from God. Really, if there is no God, then all existence really doesn’t matter. There really is no point to anything.

I am depressing myself thinking about it. Lol
I never said you know or don’t know anything. I am... (show quote)

Relevant to this, I found the following:

It sort of delves into the question: Is there good (absolute and eternal), or good is only relative to what God demands of us.
Sep 14, 2018 13:14:57   #
byronglimish wrote:
Of course young barry would cower to michael obanana👈 dang spell check and would agree with anything michael says...have you seen the gorilla teeth and linebacker shoulders on that beast?? that chum I smell? Is Sheldon trolling again?
Sep 14, 2018 13:05:25   #
karpenter wrote:
You've Got A Keyboard
And Plenty Of Time To Goof-Off Here

Why Are You So Lazy And Uninformed
That You Need To Ask Any 'Fact Checker' Anything

Stay On Top Of Current Events
Learn To Chase Imbedded Links To Their Original Source

Google Is Your Friend....

I don't have plenty of time to goof-off here. I haven't enough time to do all I want (should(must)). So I get on OPP to appear busy, when actually I'm procrastinating making a decision about which important thing to start, by doing something less important than anything else.

It is because, I am lazy and uninformed, that I ask fact checkers. If I were informed I wouldn't need to ask. If I weren't lazy, I might choose to spend all the time and resources it would take to confirm or refute some "fact". But I have a lot fewer resources than Fact checker organizations.

As for looking at original sources, I often do. I am continually amazed at the fine cherry picking that I discover.

You wrote, "Google Is Your Friend...." Because Google uses my search history, the search results have a bias toward my interests. It sort of acts as an echo chamber, kinda like my other friends. Because fact checker organizations provide a service (confirmation or refutation of information), they have an incentive to provide the best service possible. Since I have confidence in free markets, I tend to trust fact checkers that have been around for a while (e.g. Snopes). Snopes is not my friend and sometimes disappoints me by refuting things I wish were true.
Sep 14, 2018 11:22:06   #
mwdegutis wrote:
Operative and vague words suggesting innuendo...I faintly recall...I heard. What I said I ACTUALLY experienced!

"Suggesting innuendo"
an oblique allusion : hint, insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation
not clearly expressed : stated in indefinite terms vague accusations
producing an appropriate effect : efficacious operative techniques

Are you suggesting that I am lying, that I don't ACTUALLY have a faint memory of an experience of some teacher allowing an encyclopedia reference in a paper, that I didn't ACTUALLY hear something about Wikipedia being an acceptable source in cases where other encyclopedias are acceptable?
I suppose it's possible that I am a bot with implanted memories...but how would I know? I would also have an implanted memory of no teachers after middle school allowing encyclopedia references in papers.

Outside of references for papers, I think Wikipedia is as good as (if not better than) any other encyclopedia (and Wikipedia does give disclaimers and asks for improvements).
Sep 14, 2018 09:32:44   #
karpenter wrote:
I Drop The Hubris And Just Get To The Point
Because Your Declarations Are Anecdotal

Re-Read My Posts In This Thread Regarding Snopes
I've Made Myself Clear From The Start

Do Try To Comprehend What You Read

Believe it or not, I do try to comprehend what I read. And try as I might, I'm finding your writing very difficult. Perhaps it's the lack of punctuation. Perhaps it's the beginning capital on each word. I don't recall ever encountering that writing style (it makes me think of the anti-ee cummings).

When you write, "I Drop The Hubris And Just Get To The Point" after quoting my, "You dropped the "many (all?)" when you quoted me", I wonder, will nemesis be chasing after you or me?

On a new line, you wrote, "Because Your Declarations Are Anecdotal". I assume this refers to the previous line. So let me see if I can rephrase what you wrote:
Because my declarations are personal and not based on research, karpenter drops (someone's) excessive pride and gets to the point (that being, Snopes is not to be taken seriously because it has an undeniable progressive bias).

This was in response to my "...many (all?) Trump supporters will tell you Snopes can't be trusted because they belong to George Soros". Now, I suppose that karpenter wants to make it clear that, it is not "because they belong to George Soros", but because Snopes is biased, that karpenter doesn't take Snopes seriously (which is somehow different than karpenter doesn't trust Snopes). I suppose that karpenter might trust Snopes, but think their efforts ludicrous. Is that the case? Perhaps it was the "because they belong to George Soros", that raised karpenter's objection. After all, Snopes does say this is FALSE:

As for my declarations being personal and not based on research, did that cause you to "Drop The Hubris", or "Just Get To The Point"? Getting away from my person research (on Trump supporters' trust in Snopes), I would ask, "Has anyone ever met a Trump supporter who trusted Snopes?

Could you possibly make yourself a little clearer?
Sep 13, 2018 22:20:28   #
mwdegutis wrote:
And can you tell me how many people actually read that "disclaimer" before reading on? And the operative words is "Unsourced material MAY be challenged and removed." When I was in school in my late-40s about 15 years ago, we weren't allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Perhaps things have changed but considering how our institutions of "higher learning" have severely regressed since then I highly doubt it.

I faintly recall, some teachers, for some papers, would not allow references to encyclopedias as support for ideas presented in a paper. I heard recently, that Wikipedia is an acceptable reference, when used where another encyclopedia reference would be acceptable. I think this may be, because the screening process is (becoming?) very careful.
Sep 13, 2018 19:21:30   #
Bad Bob wrote:
Ya think she is smarter than trump the lying POS?

I think Barack thinks Michelle is smarter than Barack.
Sep 13, 2018 19:16:49   #
mwdegutis wrote:
Wikipedia and Snopes...helluva combination.

I thought it interesting that the Wikipedia reference was headed with:
"This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. "

Did you disagree with the Wikipedia quote?
Would you prefer:
the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure

I think I like it more, because it's simpler.

If you don't like Snopes, how determine whether to trust information?
Sep 13, 2018 18:28:08   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
You are talking about the megalomaniac Barack Hussein Obama. No one on earth can match the number of times Hussein referred to himself in all of his speeches and writings.

I think Barack Obama probably thinks Michelle Obama is the smarter of the two (if only because she doesn't seem to want to be POTUS).
Sep 13, 2018 18:18:38   #
karpenter wrote:
Is That What I Just Said
Or Just What You Want To Hear

How Do You Read Highway Signs ??
They're Subject To What You Want Them To Say, Right ??

If Progs Generally Mis-Understand Terms And Concepts
The Way You Seem To, Deliberately Or Not
Then Progs Really Have No Business Running A Country

Let's go back over our little interchange:

<acknowledgeurma wrote>
...[the "..." indicates that something is left out] Snopes says Trump never said this, but then many (all?) Trump supporters will tell you Snopes can't be trusted because they belong to George Soros.

<karpenter wrote partial quote without "...">
Trump supporters will tell you Snopes can't be trusted because they belong to George Soros

<karpenter continued with>
I Said Snopes Is Not To Be Taken Seriously
Because Their Progressive Slant Is Un-Deniable
And It's Been That Way For More Than The Last Two Years

<acknowledgeurma asked (notice the question mark)>
So you take Snopes seriously when they confirm your point of view, but they're "Not To Be Taken Seriously" when they disagree wit your point of view?

<karpenter responds with>
Is That What I Just Said
Or Just What You Want To Hear

How Do You Read Highway Signs ??
They're Subject To What You Want Them To Say, Right ??

If Progs Generally Mis-Understand Terms And Concepts
The Way You Seem To, Deliberately Or Not
Then Progs Really Have No Business Running A Country

<acknowledgeurma comments on our interchange>
1. You dropped the "many (all?)" when you quoted me. I don't recall ever encountering a Trump supporter who trusted Snopes, that's why I asked "(all?)". But I allowed for the possibility with my "many".
2. You replied with, "Nope[,] I Said Snopes Is Not To Be Taken Seriously...". I don't recall saying you ever said anything. Why did you even respond to my post?
3. But assuming you felt I had somehow misquoted you, I don't understand why you said "Nope". I think most would say: a source of information that "Is Not To Be Taken Seriously", "can't be trusted".
4. I was slightly befuddled as to why you had even replied to my original comment. I assumed you were just another Trump supporter who disregarded any Snopes reports because you perceived a "Progressive Slant" you deem "Un-Deniable". So, I asked if you took Snopes seriously when they confirm your point of view.
5. Again, until now, I don't recall ever saying you ever said anything. And I was only slightly interested in hearing, whether you took Snopes seriously when they confirm your point of view.
6. How do I read highway signs? Are they subject to what I want them to say? Well, yes, I read them as though they were subject to what I want them to say - because: I want them to say information that will get me safely to my destination, and I trust the governments to provide that information with the highway signs.
7. (Based on your use of "You Seem To") It seems you think I "Generally Mis-Understand Terms And Concepts", either deliberately or not. What terms and concepts have I misunderstood?
8. I have no desire for "Running A Country", but I would like to be POTUS. It would be interesting.
9. Why did you begin all your words with a capital?
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 55 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.