Excerpt from TOS -
""Trolling" (that is - intentionally saying things you know people will disagree with, possibly in order to spark an argument) is not permitted."
I understand your concern / question. But, sometimes better questions highlight an incident and ask as question. Lesser quality questions lean more heavily on hyperbole, twisted logic. Then there's this one - many respondents knew coming out of the chute what was going on given the history of the OP and the nature of his question. The OP has defended himself, wondering how in the world could we think he would possibly dis the president!
Now, you can buy into the OP's position if that suits you. I mean my position wouldn't likely withstand the scrutiny of a court trial. But, this isn't a court trial, and it seems pretty clear to me that the OP was simply trying to stir the shit pot.
Seems to me the OP's little game (that he admits himself to be playing) backfired on him this time. Respondents have for the most part never even addressed the OP's thinly veiled attempt to label the president as a gangster. They just told the OP to STFU.
I see most of them as twisted logic... because lets be honest... both sides are spitting out nothing but twisted logic.
I see where you're coming from, but I still think almost all the political post I've seen lately on here were meant to stir the pot.
Even the better ones sighting an incident, clearly had a little extra pot shot in it of BS or heavy misleading info.
True, but should it being only trolling based on results? ... what's to stop the other trolling that just happens to get different results? Or is that not trolling?
I think all the political misleading shots is trolling.
Legitimate concerns.
Hopefully one day things won't be so polarized and we can all work on things to improve all our lives. Sad that working cooperatively for the benefit of all is a pipe dream.
I didn't say anything about Trump. I asked a question. You and your buddies assumed this was about something you heard about on FOX and Friends.
As long as the score is mostly agree than the purpose was not to get disagrees.
As I have said before - we can't expect everyone to agree with everything we say. If a post gets mostly disagrees it will be investigated as a possible trolling post.
Weird, right? Everyone here seems to have a burning political agenda except me.
It is so odd how people often suggest that I post a non-political post, and yet when I do those same people always try to find some hidden meaning, bring it back to politics and then accuse me of trolling.
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
-Common Sense by Thomas Paine
That's Ironic, because Trump is the one hammering it in! No one brings it up more than Trump... yet you want it to stop, and say he's doing great, when really he's doing what you want stopped.
It wouldn't be brought up half as much if Trump wan't hammering it in.
In some ways, you're very correct, Trump is a refreshing change of pace.
But Trump, just like the other Presidents, is 100% a Politician, a different type of politician, but still clearly a politician. He's always campaigning and trying to steer the narrative... even when the other side is basically being quiet.
He's still clearly a politician... just because he's not a lifer and rich does not change the facts that he's clearly acting like a politician. As Trump himself has admitted he has played games and used manipulation which is the basics of any politician.
But Trump has been a politician for many many years. Which is the reason he has been known and connected with the Clintons. Also Trump was a politician with many of his businesses.
In his businesses Trump has pretended to be a public relations man named John Baron, and a spokesman who went by the name John Miller in talking with media, trying to manipulative the news stories in devious ways, just like all (or almost all) politicians do. Trump is new to being an elected official, but give the man credit, he's an expert in some of the business tactics of being a politician.
Actually you're wrong, because you're still wrongly assuming I'm liberal... and clearly you don't read and/or care for facts, otherwise you would of figured this out a long long time ago.
Well thank you for saying you're sorry, this is the first time you have seemed to listen, after you have wrongly called me that many many different times.
They keep saying that but, the last time a new party came into office and only had one term was 1977... so the recent history suggest Trump will be a two term President.
1) Who said we're better off? - There are good and bad's, I don't think anyone truly knows the end results yet.
2) Why care about America? ... Hmm THEM FIGHTING WORDS
Gangsters demand 'inquiry' into their inquiry when the inquirers and the instigators of the inquiry are themselves revealed to be gangsters, as comes out on an almost daily basis.
Trump is doing it to deflect from the real issues....of him being investigated by Mueller. He knows the truth will come out eventually, and he's scared to death. lol
That's a fake headline, the Chicago Tribune has an online archive. First off, Oct 17, 1931 was a Saturday, not a Sunday. The headline for Oct 17th, Saturday, was 'BOMB IN THEATER; 3 BURNED'. The Chicago Sunday Tribune, dated Oct 18th, had the headline 'U.S. JURY CONVICTS CAPONE'.
Because I understand that every human utterance is a false representation of reality - so therefore everything I say or write is false.
(I know you're wanting to present some 'liar paradox' mumbo-jumbo on me, please restrain yourself).
On the other hand, I think that most of what Trump says he actually thinks is real.
Conclusion: I tell falsehoods on purpose because human based communication is fraught with mistakes and truth can only be shared by accident. Trump tells some falsehoods because he has lost touch with reality and he tells others on purpose, therefore he is unaware that everything he says in false.
But if everything is a "false representation of reality," then how can truth emerge even by accident, since you also have often said there is no truth?
And you also seem to be assuming that there is a reality... very un-Vic-like.
Because LibSpin is a job for ZuperZinc!
Wrong airline.
I fly for Truth (F)Air.
And Prog Air(head) is the "Left" airline.
(aka Prog (HOT)Air )
Typical prog in the gif above... on life support.
Oh, and here is the #1 pilot at Prog Air:
haha because Trump is a gangster.... lol
Hahaha. why don't you say what you really mean...lol
I think it is. lol
Excerpt from TOS -
""Trolling" (that is - intentionally saying things you know people will disagree with, possibly in order to spark an argument) is not permitted."
Sic semper trollis.
I like that one!
About time you said something sensible.
Not a chance.
It's his stock in trade.
Like most liberals, he has a silk stocking fetish.
Agreed - it's pretty bad.
Isn't that like 90% of the political questions on here falls under that category, and 100% of some of the questions/opinions people create.
I understand your concern / question. But, sometimes better questions highlight an incident and ask as question. Lesser quality questions lean more heavily on hyperbole, twisted logic. Then there's this one - many respondents knew coming out of the chute what was going on given the history of the OP and the nature of his question. The OP has defended himself, wondering how in the world could we think he would possibly dis the president!
Now, you can buy into the OP's position if that suits you. I mean my position wouldn't likely withstand the scrutiny of a court trial. But, this isn't a court trial, and it seems pretty clear to me that the OP was simply trying to stir the shit pot.
Seems to me the OP's little game (that he admits himself to be playing) backfired on him this time. Respondents have for the most part never even addressed the OP's thinly veiled attempt to label the president as a gangster. They just told the OP to STFU.
I see most of them as twisted logic... because lets be honest... both sides are spitting out nothing but twisted logic.
I see where you're coming from, but I still think almost all the political post I've seen lately on here were meant to stir the pot.
Even the better ones sighting an incident, clearly had a little extra pot shot in it of BS or heavy misleading info.
True, but should it being only trolling based on results? ... what's to stop the other trolling that just happens to get different results? Or is that not trolling?
I think all the political misleading shots is trolling.
Legitimate concerns.
Hopefully one day things won't be so polarized and we can all work on things to improve all our lives. Sad that working cooperatively for the benefit of all is a pipe dream.
I didn't say anything about Trump. I asked a question. You and your buddies assumed this was about something you heard about on FOX and Friends.
As long as the score is mostly agree than the purpose was not to get disagrees.
As I have said before - we can't expect everyone to agree with everything we say. If a post gets mostly disagrees it will be investigated as a possible trolling post.
My 10 year old grandson offers lame excuses like that.
You seem to be obsessed with polls and such. Reading the comments thus far, you are the only one that thinks you've written an update on Al Capone.
Weird, right? Everyone here seems to have a burning political agenda except me.
It is so odd how people often suggest that I post a non-political post, and yet when I do those same people always try to find some hidden meaning, bring it back to politics and then accuse me of trolling.
Just weird.
You had no political agenda in this post, Vic?
Right. And I'm Cleopatra.
Why do you so often think that?
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
-Common Sense by Thomas Paine
It goes on, but you get the drift.
That's Ironic, because Trump is the one hammering it in! No one brings it up more than Trump... yet you want it to stop, and say he's doing great, when really he's doing what you want stopped.
It wouldn't be brought up half as much if Trump wan't hammering it in.
In some ways, you're very correct, Trump is a refreshing change of pace.
But Trump, just like the other Presidents, is 100% a Politician, a different type of politician, but still clearly a politician. He's always campaigning and trying to steer the narrative... even when the other side is basically being quiet.
He's still clearly a politician... just because he's not a lifer and rich does not change the facts that he's clearly acting like a politician. As Trump himself has admitted he has played games and used manipulation which is the basics of any politician.
A lot of what you have said is very much correct.
But Trump has been a politician for many many years. Which is the reason he has been known and connected with the Clintons. Also Trump was a politician with many of his businesses.
In his businesses Trump has pretended to be a public relations man named John Baron, and a spokesman who went by the name John Miller in talking with media, trying to manipulative the news stories in devious ways, just like all (or almost all) politicians do. Trump is new to being an elected official, but give the man credit, he's an expert in some of the business tactics of being a politician.
He is clearly a master debater too.
Actually you're wrong, because you're still wrongly assuming I'm liberal... and clearly you don't read and/or care for facts, otherwise you would of figured this out a long long time ago.
All you do is put on your blinders and attack...
Well thank you for saying you're sorry, this is the first time you have seemed to listen, after you have wrongly called me that many many different times.
You nailed it, Z. Trump is very scared now, Mueller is closing in on him and he's panicking.....
One off President? ... you mean one term?
They keep saying that but, the last time a new party came into office and only had one term was 1977... so the recent history suggest Trump will be a two term President.
1) Who said we're better off? - There are good and bad's, I don't think anyone truly knows the end results yet.
2) Why care about America? ... Hmm THEM FIGHTING WORDS
I could be wrong, but I think there might of been a number of Presidents like him, just none recently.
Yeah but many Americans have said that under every recent President...
You read it again, clearly you missed the smiley face which kinda shows I was kidding when making that statement.
Nope, that's one of my many being silly face.
We care because we're Americans and we care about the rule of law, something Trump doesn't give a darn about.
Great comment Z....
Gangsters demand 'inquiry' into their inquiry when the inquirers and the instigators of the inquiry are themselves revealed to be gangsters, as comes out on an almost daily basis.
why do you have to turn everything political? Can't you just vote and move on?
Your premise is wrong.
I respond politically to political bait posts, such as this one.
Nothing political here. Move along now.
My moderation is unbiased, every opinion matters. My opinions are biased, that is what all opinions are.
Wow, for someone who doesn't have any problems with Trump you sure seem to have a lot of concerns about Trump. Those thoughts never crossed my mind.
Good thing this is not a "fact" site, because I would agree with you (that might be a first).
But it is an opinion site an I respect your opinion, even if it is very different from mine.
I don't know I don't read Huff post
Trump is doing it to deflect from the real issues....of him being investigated by Mueller. He knows the truth will come out eventually, and he's scared to death. lol
They're trying to figure out where the mole is coming from (also distraction and misdirection).
That's a fake headline, the Chicago Tribune has an online archive. First off, Oct 17, 1931 was a Saturday, not a Sunday. The headline for Oct 17th, Saturday, was 'BOMB IN THEATER; 3 BURNED'. The Chicago Sunday Tribune, dated Oct 18th, had the headline 'U.S. JURY CONVICTS CAPONE'.
http://chicagotribune.newspaper...ymd=1931-10-18
Progressives are always on the lookout for fake news, even if they have to photoshop it.
I don't know about all progressives, but I am. So, I guess, is our president, he seems to like it almost as much as me.
So you admit that you're a worse liar than Trump?
Absolutely!
Because I understand that every human utterance is a false representation of reality - so therefore everything I say or write is false.
(I know you're wanting to present some 'liar paradox' mumbo-jumbo on me, please restrain yourself).
On the other hand, I think that most of what Trump says he actually thinks is real.
Conclusion: I tell falsehoods on purpose because human based communication is fraught with mistakes and truth can only be shared by accident. Trump tells some falsehoods because he has lost touch with reality and he tells others on purpose, therefore he is unaware that everything he says in false.
"truth can only be shared by accident"?
But if everything is a "false representation of reality," then how can truth emerge even by accident, since you also have often said there is no truth?
And you also seem to be assuming that there is a reality... very un-Vic-like.
There is a reality, we just can't share our experience of it.
It is possible to accidently share the truth, it is just that neither party can be sure it happened.
"Only one attains"
You mean it's true that there is a reality?
How do you know that, if there is no truth?
see
http://amirite.com/819981-why-d...dy-for/2769764
Specifically "(I know you're wanting to present some 'liar paradox' mumbo-jumbo on me, please restrain yourself)."
It's ok, Vic.
You have faith.
You would probably be very surprised if you ever found out who actually controls this sock.
Donald Trump?
Oh, one more question, Vic:
Did you not know the newspaper image you used was fake, or if you did, decide to use it anyway?
Or, worst of all, did you photoshop it yourself?
I found it that way. I didn't check, but I assumed it was fake. I mean it was too perfect so what are the chances it was real.
Question for you, did you or anyone else think it was real? Because seriously - give me a break.
Actually, I only glanced at it and didn't give it sufficient thought. Yes, it was too perfect.
That seems right. Here is another totally fake image
The darned things are everywhere?
So, now that we have that out of the way - Why do gangsters so often demand 'inquiry' into their inquiry? (Also, are you ready for breadlines?)
Who says gangsters "often demand 'inquiry' into their inquiry" besides you? The "evidence" you presented to support your assertion is a lie.
Lol!! Thats what I was thinking.