The American eagle has been drugged
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
We aren't going with disapproval ratings, we are going with approval and the fact remains, more people approve of Trump than they did Obama.And you make yet another claim without evidence to prove it.
Specific to your latest unsubstantiated claim: The RCP average of polls reports BOTH approval and disapproval numbers for the two presidents at this time in their first terms. Since you focus solely on approval numbers, let's look at those (find links in one of my previous post):
- Obama, on September 10, 2010: 45.6%
- Trump, on September 10, 2018: 41.0%
45.6% is HIGHER/GREATER than 41.0%. Your claim that "more people approve of Trump than they did Obama" is true ONLY if we restrict reference to polls from GOP-friendly sources such as Rasmussen. If we consult a variety of polls, however - as any objectively-minded researcher would do - your claim is clearly false.
[The latest national polls other than Rasmussen? CNN: Trump's at 37% approval. Quinnipiac: 38%. Gallup: 40%. Even in Rasmussen, Obama NEVER got that low.]
Don't agree? Provide links to specific and on-point data that prove me wrong. Don't just claim, reformed. Prove.
CNN and Quinnipiac are out. CNN isn't even a credible organization anymore
-
@reformed said:
CNN and Quinnipiac are out. CNN isn't even a credible organization anymoreWho knows what "isn't even a credible organization anymore" means, or how that mysterious critique comments on, let alone proves anything about, the quality of the CNN poll.
Why is Quinnipiac "out"?
What about ABC News/Washington Post (36% approval), Gallup (41%), IBD/TIPP (36%), Selzer & Co. (39%), and Suffolk University (40%), ALL polls whose latest results show the president's current approval at or below 40%? Are all of them "out" too?
-
I am sorry about all those Americans who are on @Big_Snort_'s drugs. But for the rest of us, we have this real life:
I have all faith that every true servant of Christ will lay aside their politics, take a knee, and bow before Almighty God in thanksgiving for this day of grace and blessing and the amazing way God brought it about.
Who will join me in thanksgiving?
-
Sorry, the clip is not working. CM
-
-
@GaoLu said:
Works great.Now, it's working. Maybe it was my computer. Some of the things seen are THERE, are not kosher for CD eyes. Sad. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Works great.Now, it's working. Maybe it was my computer. Some of the things seen are THERE, are not kosher for CD eyes. Sad. CM
Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video? I admit that in retrospect he was admitting his abilities and lack of vision. Was that especially difficult for you to watch, in light of Trump's astounding success?
-
@GaoLu said:
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Works great.Now, it's working. Maybe it was my computer. Some of the things seen are THERE, are not kosher for CD eyes. Sad. CM
Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video? I admit that in retrospect he was admitting his abilities and lack of vision. Was that especially difficult for you to watch, in light of Trump's astounding success?
Are you talking about your former President (Mr. Obama) for 8 yrs? CM
-
Indeed I am talking about my former President, Mr. Obama, as anyone can see, and you said it was working.
And your answer?
-
@GaoLu said:
Is that a sincere, honest question?It's about as sincere as your question [Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video?].
To start with, I wasn't referring to a person or people. You seem to be in troll mood today. I don't have time for it. Enjoy yourself.
The Eagle is drugged with fear and lack of knowledge. Who in the White House wrote the letter? Trump can't even focus reporting on the economy. Maybe it's good. Let him prepare for the storm. One thing at a time. See the book, "Fear". CM
-
Here is a refresher:
Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video? I admit that in retrospect he was admitting his abilities and lack of vision. Was that especially difficult for you to watch, in light of Trump's astounding success?
Chicken or weasel? Why are you so afraid to answer?
I provided a link to a video. You throw out red herrings. Just answer the question if you are real enough and man enough to do so (this is so former Bill--deja vu).
-
@GaoLu said:
I provided a link to a video. You throw out red herrings. Just answer the question if you are real enough and man enough to do so (this is so former Bill--deja vu).Helpful words, Gao Lu. Expect me to quote them the next time you or reformed doesn't answer a question I pose.
-
@GaoLu said:
Here is a refresher:Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video? I admit that in retrospect he was admitting his abilities and lack of vision. Was that especially difficult for you to watch, in light of Trump's astounding success?
I hate to repeat it, but here it is again...
CM said: To start with, I wasn't referring to a person or people. You seem to be in troll mood today. I don't have time for it. Enjoy yourself...
@GaoLu said: "Chicken or weasel? Why are you so afraid to answer"?
"I provided a link to a video. You throw out red herrings. Just answer the question if you are real enough and man enough to do so (this is so former Bill--deja vu)".
This is so elementary and childish. There seems to be a regression here. Let's move on, Mr. GaoLu. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
I am moving on and asking you to answer a simple question. You keep weaseling around using red herrings and who knows what ID's. It seems both dishonest and disingenuous. It is your reputation. You choose. I am not your Mother.
-
@GaoLu said:
I am moving on and asking you to answer a simple question. You keep weaseling around using red herrings and who knows what ID's. It seems both dishonest and disingenuous. It is your reputation. You choose. I am not your Mother.There we go again! What this thing with you and mothers? Honestly, fill me in. CM
-
Other than trying to be one, what is your problem with mothers?
And one more time
CM said:
@GaoLu said: "Chicken or weasel? Why are you so afraid to answer"?
"I provided a link to a video. You throw out red herrings. Just answer the question if you are real enough and man enough to do so (this is so former Bill--deja vu)".Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video? I admit that in retrospect he was admitting his abilities and lack of vision. Was that especially difficult for you to watch, in light of Trump's astounding success?
Lay aside weaseling and cowardice and mother-identity issues and answer. One more refusal from you will be more telling than your answer and I shall be satisfied with that for now.
-
@GaoLu said:
Other than trying to be one, what is your problem with mothers?
Lay aside weaseling and cowardice and mother-identity issues and answer. One more refusal from you will be more telling than your answer and I shall be satisfied with that for now.
You have no other choice to move on. You do need to settle whatever "mother" or "mothering" issues you have. I may not be able to help you, but there is the help. CM
-
You can help. I have been very clear, that I have one mothering issue. That issue is with you trying to mother people with politics and using that role to play either the subtle or direct online bully. You even tried it with Jan.
I also accept your repeatedly weaseling out of answering the questions above and trying to cover it over. Whatever, dude. Your character is on spotlight display.
I could take this a lot farther (and might yet), but am not now for one simple reason: I don't think you are playing with a full deck.
-
@GaoLu said:
You can help. I have been very clear, that I have one mothering issue. That issue is with you trying to mother people with politics and using that role to play either the subtle or direct online bully. You even tried it with Jan.Watch it, GaoLu. CM
-
Case and point.
-
@GaoLu said:
Other than trying to be one, what is your problem with mothers?
CM said:
@GaoLu said: "Chicken or weasel? Why are you so afraid to answer"?
"I provided a link to a video. You throw out red herrings. Just answer the question if you are real enough and man enough to do so (this is so former Bill--deja vu)".Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video? I admit that in retrospect he was admitting his abilities and lack of vision. Was that especially difficult for you to watch, in light of Trump's astounding success?
Lay aside weaseling and cowardice and mother-identity issues and answer. One more refusal from you will be more telling than your answer and I shall be satisfied with that for now.
Stop bullying me, GaoLu. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Other than trying to be one, what is your problem with mothers?
CM said:
@GaoLu said: "Chicken or weasel? Why are you so afraid to answer"?
"I provided a link to a video. You throw out red herrings. Just answer the question if you are real enough and man enough to do so (this is so former Bill--deja vu)".Why do your eyes have a problem seeing a black man in a video? I admit that in retrospect he was admitting his abilities and lack of vision. Was that especially difficult for you to watch, in light of Trump's astounding success?
Lay aside weaseling and cowardice and mother-identity issues and answer. One more refusal from you will be more telling than your answer and I shall be satisfied with that for now.
Stop bullying me, GaoLu. CM
If you think he is the bully in your little spat your are delusional. You bully all the time as does Bill.
-
@reformed said:
If you think he is the bully in your little spat your are delusional. You bully all the time as does Bill.
Don't accuse me, reformed. Quote me.
I don't just accuse you of name-calling. I can provide quotes from and direct links to posts in which you've called other CD posters "stupid," "ignorant," "an idiot," and of course, a "pig."
So quote me. Don't bother looking for instances of my calling CD posters "idiots" et al. I am too committed to "criticize ideas, not people" to throw such mud. But you claim I "bully all the time," so you surely believe that examples of my bullying abound. I eagerly await what you proffer. If nothing else, at least we'll know what you consider to be "bullying."
-
Your words above bear no resemblance to your practice. I affirm what @Reformed said about you Bill. Your behavior is very well known. The burden is not for victims to prove, but for you to man-up and knock it off. Either that or be allowed to keep playing the troll game. That is a moderator choice.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
If you think he is the bully in your little spat your are delusional. You bully all the time as does Bill.
Don't accuse me, reformed. Quote me.
I don't just accuse you of name-calling. I can provide quotes from and direct links to posts in which you've called other CD posters "stupid," "ignorant," "an idiot," and of course, a "pig."
So quote me. Don't bother looking for instances of my calling CD posters "idiots" et al. I am too committed to "criticize ideas, not people" to throw such mud. But you claim I "bully all the time," so you surely believe that examples of my bullying abound. I eagerly await what you proffer. If nothing else, at least we'll know what you consider to be "bullying."
How about the tons of PM's accusing me of being David Taylor?
-
@reformed said:
How about the tons of PM's accusing me of being David Taylor?
Some comments:
- I sent you a total of four PMs on the subject. I don't think four qualifies as "tons," but you're free to conclude otherwise.
- I sent you the first of those four PMs on June 14, in response to a PM you had sent to me. So I didn't initiate our PM exchange on the issue of your CD identity; you did.
- In that June 14 PM, I offered a four point plus two paragraph summary of the rationale for my doubts about your CD identity. I did so without diatribe, without name-calling, without personally dismissive speech. AND, I did so in the privacy of a PM.
- I sent you the second of the four PMs on June 26, another private declaration of my concern, this one rooted in a VERY specific 16 word section of one of your posts. Again, I offered my evidence without nasty personal commentary, and in the privacy of a PM.
- The other two PMs were sent on June 26 (a reply to your reply) and July 19 (an additional piece of evidence from your posts which I raised for your review). Once again, I expressed my concerns to you in the privacy of PMs, without harangue, and accompanied by what I considered to be supportive evidence.
- Is it your contention that those four PMs, sent to you over a five week period within the 4-1/2 months of your CD participation - the most recent one sent nearly two months ago - demonstrate the truth of your claim that I "bully all the time"?
- You and I may well define "bullying" differently, but I ascribe to the dictionary's definition of the word, which is when a person "uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker." Basically in my view, bullying requires a power differential - real or perceived - between two people. Such a differential doesn't exist between us, at least not in my view.
- Cyberbullying is the online variation of the behavior. According to stopbullying.gov, cyberbullying "creates a kind of permanent public record of (victims') views, activities, and behavior. This public record can be thought of as an online reputation, which may be accessible to schools, employers, colleges, clubs, and others who may be researching an individual now or in the future." It's hard to imagine that four messages, sent privately, will create an "online reputation" for you.
- But if four PMs sent months ago constitute bullying "all the time," how do you describe the 23 public forum posts Gao Lu and you have created about my identity in the last five weeks? Were they examples of an even more-severe form of bullying?
- To clear the air and remove any mystery surrounding the four PMs I sent you, reformed, I will gladly publish them - full and unedited - in a public forum thread. That way, other CD participants would be able to assess for themselves the extent to which I may have "bullied" you through them, as well as the extent to which the evidence I presented in them supported my claims. In addition, CD folks would be able to compare my approach to presenting CD identity concerns with the approach you and Gao Lu have employed. Just say the word.
In sum, I reject your claim that I have bullied you or anyone else. I express my views, just as you express yours. I do so without name-calling or personal invective, just as you do so without... well, never mind. I have been the subject of more ad hominem attacks in CD forums - this version and its predecessor - than ANYONE, and by far. I've had people question my character, my integrity, my intelligence, my ministry as a pastor, my Christianity, and my CD identity (!) almost ALWAYS without evidence, and almost ALWAYS without returning the fire directed at me. But I have never felt bullied. I don't accept your claim that I have bullied you or anyone else.
But you might have other evidence of your claim. If so, please offer it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
How about the tons of PM's accusing me of being David Taylor?
Some comments:
- I sent you a total of four PMs on the subject. I don't think four qualifies as "tons," but you're free to conclude otherwise.
- I sent you the first of those four PMs on June 14, in response to a PM you had sent to me. So I didn't initiate our PM exchange on the issue of your CD identity; you did.
- In that June 14 PM, I offered a four point plus two paragraph summary of the rationale for my doubts about your CD identity. I did so without diatribe, without name-calling, without personally dismissive speech. AND, I did so in the privacy of a PM.
- I sent you the second of the four PMs on June 26, another private declaration of my concern, this one rooted in a VERY specific 16 word section of one of your posts. Again, I offered my evidence without nasty personal commentary, and in the privacy of a PM.
- The other two PMs were sent on June 26 (a reply to your reply) and July 19 (an additional piece of evidence from your posts which I raised for your review). Once again, I expressed my concerns to you in the privacy of PMs, without harangue, and accompanied by what I considered to be supportive evidence.
- Is it your contention that those four PMs, sent to you over a five week period within the 4-1/2 months of your CD participation - the most recent one sent nearly two months ago - demonstrate the truth of your claim that I "bully all the time"?
- You and I may well define "bullying" differently, but I ascribe to the dictionary's definition of the word, which is when a person "uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker." Basically in my view, bullying requires a power differential - real or perceived - between two people. Such a differential doesn't exist between us, at least not in my view.
- Cyberbullying is the online variation of the behavior. According to stopbullying.gov, cyberbullying "creates a kind of permanent public record of (victims') views, activities, and behavior. This public record can be thought of as an online reputation, which may be accessible to schools, employers, colleges, clubs, and others who may be researching an individual now or in the future." It's hard to imagine that four messages, sent privately, will create an "online reputation" for you.
- But if four PMs sent months ago constitute bullying "all the time," how do you describe the 23 public forum posts Gao Lu and you have created about my identity in the last five weeks? Were they examples of an even more-severe form of bullying?
- To clear the air and remove any mystery surrounding the four PMs I sent you, reformed, I will gladly publish them - full and unedited - in a public forum thread. That way, other CD participants would be able to assess for themselves the extent to which I may have "bullied" you through them, as well as the extent to which the evidence I presented in them supported my claims. In addition, CD folks would be able to compare my approach to presenting CD identity concerns with the approach you and Gao Lu have employed. Just say the word.
In sum, I reject your claim that I have bullied you or anyone else. I express my views, just as you express yours. I do so without name-calling or personal invective, just as you do so without... well, never mind. I have been the subject of more ad hominem attacks in CD forums - this version and its predecessor - than ANYONE, and by far. I've had people question my character, my integrity, my intelligence, my ministry as a pastor, my Christianity, and my CD identity (!) almost ALWAYS without evidence, and almost ALWAYS without returning the fire directed at me. But I have never felt bullied. I don't accept your claim that I have bullied you or anyone else.
But you might have other evidence of your claim. If so, please offer it.
Except you do call names. Just today you called @GaoLu a liar. And apparently you and I have different definitions of bully.
-
Calling a person who walks a "walker" is name-calling of sorts, but it's a name that is both accurate and tied to a specific conduct; the same is true with calling a person who teaches a "teacher," and a person who lies, a "liar." As I made clear in my post, I attach the name "liar" to Gao Lu ONLY with regard to his years-long lying about my CD identities.
The truth is he has lied repeatedly about my identity over our years together in CD forums, and hence, though "liar" is in fact a name that I am calling him, it is ALSO an accurate description of a specific conduct. In my view, that makes my calling him a "liar" different from calling someone by more generalized, umbrella-like dismissive terms such as "idiot," or "pig."
For what it's worth, a person who tells a falsehood once or a handful of times is not, in my view, a "liar." I reserve the term for people who speak falsehoods repeatedly, as a matter of personal practice - e.g. Donald Trump, and, on the matter of my CD identity, Gao Lu.
And apparently you and I have different definitions of bully.
When it comes to the definition of "bullying," mine is the dictionary's. What's yours?
-
@GaoLu said:
You can help. I have been very clear, that I have one mothering issue. That issue is with you trying to mother people with politics and using that role to play either the subtle or direct online bully. You even tried it with Jan.Just for the record: I've not felt mothered or bullied.
Although I don't like to play the moderator card, it's the right thing to point me to discussions that go out of hand.
This has been done by a number of forum regulars (albeit not always in the best possible way, such as starting a group conversation via PM).
So is it legitimate to refuse to answer a question? I would argue it is.
Anyone who is sufficiently familiar with the topic can see whether the question was left unanswered because the person asked has been cornered or left with a dilemma, or the question is not worth answering for whatever reasons.Jesus refused to answer questions at several occasions. It can be the right thing to do, and is not condemnable.
-
@Jan said:
Just for the record: I've not felt mothered or bullied.Your experience is valuable in this regard, Jan. Thanks.
So is it legitimate to refuse to answer a question? I would argue it is.
Anyone who is sufficiently familiar with the topic can see whether the question was left unanswered because the person asked has been cornered or left with a dilemma, or the question is not worth answering for whatever reasons.Jesus refused to answer questions at several occasions. It can be the right thing to do, and is not condemnable.
The problem with one poster's refusing to respond to the question(s) of another poster - at least if that refusal comes without identifying the reason(s) for the refusal - is that the questioning poster has no way of understanding the status of his or her discussion with the poster he or she has questioned. There is a BIG difference between a poster's silence that results from being "cornered" in an argument, and one whose roots are in an assertion that the question "is not worth answering for whatever reasons." It seems to me that participants in forum exchanges have a right to know whether those they have questioned intend to respond, and if not, why not.
In my experience in these forums, posters never fail to respond to questions they consider easy or simple. In almost every case - and I've been on the questioner end of dozens over the years - the questions posters don't address are the questions whose truthful answers reveal or confess weakness(es) in their arguments. Rather than admit those weaknesses, those questioned remain silent.
To me, that makes this a matter of character and accountability. If you ask me a question that shows a weakness in my argument, I display a character flaw if I don't acknowledge your question's power and consequences. I need to stand accountable. I need to own my arguments and respond directly and truthfully to the questions you ask me, even - make that, especially - the hard questions you ask.
The most common form of question evasion I've encountered has been the questioning/judging of the questions asked: "You're not asking the right question." "You display bad intentions in asking that question." "I don't think you really want to know the answer." "You can find the answer to your question yourself." The effect of such expressions of doubt about the questions asked is to evade the question... again, usually because direct, truthful answers to the question imperil the strength of an argument.
In my view, refusing to answer questions is surely not a "condemnable" offense, but it is a form of evasion that runs contrary to the idea of Christian brothers and sisters "speaking the truth is love" - both the easy and the hard truths.
