Page 110 of 458 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110111112120160210 ... LastLast
Results 2,181 to 2,200 of 9143

Thread: Meme & Quote Thread

  1. #2181
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    How is modeling your political belief system after a President but not admitting that said President is/was flawed NOT precisely the point?
    I'm not sure that it's relevant unless you give Philip Roth an opportunity to expound on Japanese internment, or does every mention of a political figure have to come with a disclaimer?

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Julio3000 For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-23-2017), Runnin (01-23-2017)

  3. #2182
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,567
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    Seems sexist to me. Funny how liberals can't be accused of this.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  4. #2183
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mqt View Post
    Because not every single flaw, no matter how glaring it might be, needs to be mentioned in every conversation. I believe the idea of the quote was to discuss Trump. It's no different than not having to specify that you're an American but don't believe in slavery, because the nation allowed it previously.
    But in this conversation it's obviously appropriate.

    You don't label someone 'humanly impoverished' in the same breath as lauding a figure who instituted American concentration camps during WWII. It doesn't work that way.

  5. #2184
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    I'm not sure that it's relevant unless you give Philip Roth an opportunity to expound on Japanese internment, or does every mention of a political figure have to come with a disclaimer?
    How about the simple acknowledgement that every human is inherently flawed? Wouldn't that be more a more respectful approach than resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks on a man who has been leading this country for less than a week?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Hawk For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-23-2017)

  7. #2185
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    How about the simple acknowledgement that every human is inherently flawed? Wouldn't that be more a more respectful approach than resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks on a man who has been leading this country for less than a week?
    Perhaps so, but isn't it a little silly to suggest that Trump hasn't given ample reason to question his character? Or do you not think he has?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Julio3000 For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-23-2017)

  9. #2186
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,797
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    But in this conversation it's obviously appropriate.

    You don't label someone 'humanly impoverished' in the same breath as lauding a figure who instituted American concentration camps during WWII. It doesn't work that way.
    1) we have becomes so "it's all about us" that we measure history by present day standards?
    Washington owned slaves, fought and killed Native Alericans to seize their land and probably had some homophobic tendencies
    Lincoln declared martial law and was by all accounts bi=polar
    etc etc etc.
    Roosevelt had many blind spots that in his lifetime that in their time were not viewed as blind spots.
    of course you get my point

    2) Phillip Roth for the past 50 years has made his living writing about impoverished humans.

    And been by all accounts "successful"
    ...../////////////////////////////

    Not surprised the part you missed was Trump's 77 word vocabulary.
    77 - shoot , we could list them:
    Left
    Liberal
    Leftist
    Media (those first 4 are for thethe)
    Crooked
    Lyin'
    Low Energy
    Polls
    Terrific
    Pussy
    Deal
    Trade
    Office
    ...

    the usual articles
    the
    them
    him
    her
    you
    do
    don't

    wrong
    nasty


    there are 22 and I am stuck.
    Hawk, you misunderstood Roth.
    He was in fact giving Trump credit for his vocabulary


    we need 55 more
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  10. #2187
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,797
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    get him outta here
    I don't know what I'm saying

    see, there are 10 more
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  11. #2188
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    Perhaps so, but isn't it a little silly to suggest that Trump hasn't given ample reason to question his character? Or do you not think he has?
    I think that's a subjective question. What constitutes good character to you might not meet my standards - or vice versa. Of course, there's the question of whether it's truly useful to judge personal character in a discussion like this. Democrats chose not to judge the Clinton family. I can see why Republicans don't find it necessary to judge Trump's past. As far as his character as a President is concerned there's just not much to go on yet.

    What's the single most egregiously questionable character trait Donald possesses in your eyes? Speaking too quickly? Some would construe that has having a good gut. Being petty? To some, that's refusing to lose. Egomaniacal? That's essentially capitalism for you.

    I personally like the idea of Trump being a bull in a china shop and ****ing Washington up. It needs a stiff one up the ass, and apparently so do a lot of Americans if they are so willingly accepting of the status quo.

    For that reason I've dismissed most of my trepidations. And there are still some, but they have more to do with disliking the isolationist tilt to his described FP than they do with some of this ludicrous 'nuclear codes' frothing at the mouth that I've heard/read.

  12. #2189
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 57Brave View Post
    Washington owned slaves, fought and killed Native Alericans to seize their land and probably had some homophobic tendencies
    Lincoln declared martial law and was by all accounts bi=polar
    etc etc etc.
    Roosevelt had many blind spots that in his lifetime that in their time were not viewed as blind spots.
    of course you get my point
    I do. But it would appear that Mr. Roth doesn't. That's my point.

    As for the 77 word thing (which I did address when I mentioned ad hominem attacks) ... it's wittyish - but I'd counter with this: It was enough to communicate with 63 million voters.

    You can take up all further gripes with the Department of Education.

  13. #2190
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,797
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    If he was worth his salt he would have reached 66 million

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 57Brave For This Useful Post:

    goldfly (01-23-2017), Hawk (01-23-2017), jpx7 (01-23-2017)

  15. #2191
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,626
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    199
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,328
    Thanked in
    853 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I do. But it would appear that Mr. Roth doesn't. That's my point.

    As for the 77 word thing (which I did address when I mentioned ad hominem attacks) ... it's wittyish - but I'd counter with this: It was enough to communicate with 63 million voters.

    You can take up all further gripes with the Department of Education.
    I don't think an ad hominem attack is a fallacy when your argument is specifically that someone isn't equipped to do something. He wasn't arguing against Trump's positions, but Trump himself, so that logically follows.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to mqt For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-23-2017)

  17. #2192
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,626
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    199
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,328
    Thanked in
    853 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I think that's a subjective question. What constitutes good character to you might not meet my standards - or vice versa. Of course, there's the question of whether it's truly useful to judge personal character in a discussion like this. Democrats chose not to judge the Clinton family. I can see why Republicans don't find it necessary to judge Trump's past. As far as his character as a President is concerned there's just not much to go on yet.

    What's the single most egregiously questionable character trait Donald possesses in your eyes? Speaking too quickly? Some would construe that has having a good gut. Being petty? To some, that's refusing to lose. Egomaniacal? That's essentially capitalism for you.

    I personally like the idea of Trump being a bull in a china shop and ****ing Washington up. It needs a stiff one up the ass, and apparently so do a lot of Americans if they are so willingly accepting of the status quo.

    For that reason I've dismissed most of my trepidations. And there are still some, but they have more to do with disliking the isolationist tilt to his described FP than they do with some of this ludicrous 'nuclear codes' frothing at the mouth that I've heard/read.
    Being a morally bankrupt narcissist that has taken advantage of the system at every possible turn, while being purposely deceptive to achieve whatever his goal is.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to mqt For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (01-23-2017)

  19. #2193
    Secretary of Statistics AerchAngel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Eau Claire, WI
    Posts
    7,565
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,115
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,282
    Thanked in
    882 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mqt View Post
    Being a morally bankrupt narcissist that has taken advantage of the system at every possible turn, while being purposely deceptive to achieve whatever his goal is.
    Isn't most politicians?

  20. #2194
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,626
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    199
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,328
    Thanked in
    853 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AerchAngel View Post
    Isn't most politicians?
    That's fair, but he asked what I thought his worst trait was, and it sure as **** isn't how quickly Trump talks.

  21. #2195
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,440
    Thanked in
    3,829 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    How about the simple acknowledgement that every human is inherently flawed? Wouldn't that be more a more respectful approach than resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks on a man who has been leading this country for less than a week?
    All humans are terrible, though the extent varies. I may not believe in god, but I sure as hell believe humans are, by nature, fallen creatures.

    I happen to believe Donald Trump is especially terrible, particularly fallen, et cetera; I think he's bad, I think his plans are mostly bad, and I think most of his reasons for doing things are bad. I believe, moreover, that I have good reasons to hold to this line of thinking—both with respect to President Trump's well-archived past, his words and actions over the course of his public-office campaign, and the policy decisions he has floated in his first few days in said office. Likewise, [MENTION=1810]mqt[/MENTION] is correct: ad hominem modes of attack are not inherently fallacious; if a person's character or past actions are relevant to their current claims, it's a logically-valid basis for argument.

    But, as you said up-thread, what "constitutes good character" is not a matter of universal consensus; and I fully concede that you, or anyone else, might conceive dubious or even downright terrible things to be examples of "good". For one instance: I don't conflate pettiness with righteous obduracy. For another: I think that capitalism is, essentially, a morally-bankrupt system of house-ordering. As a final entry: I don't think Donald Trump has ever once peddled a truly worthwhile product on the sordid market—whether you're judging steaks or education or television or real-estate—so you'll excuse me if I clutch my trepidations like so many pearls, and bear little faith regarding the policy promises he's peddling now.
    Last edited by jpx7; 01-23-2017 at 06:44 PM.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to jpx7 For This Useful Post:

    57Brave (01-23-2017)

  23. #2196
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mqt View Post
    I don't think an ad hominem attack is a fallacy when your argument is specifically that someone isn't equipped to do something. He wasn't arguing against Trump's positions, but Trump himself, so that logically follows.
    If you read Roth's The Plot Against America (the subject-matter of the book is what prompted the New Yorker to interview him to begin with) it becomes clear that his attacks on Trump are based on ideological differences. In other words, if it were a multi-nationalist progressive with a 77-word vocabulary who was just elected we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    Last edited by Hawk; 01-23-2017 at 07:42 PM.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Hawk For This Useful Post:

    Garmel (01-23-2017)

  25. #2197
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,626
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    199
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,328
    Thanked in
    853 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    If you read Roth's The Plot Against America (the subject-matter of the book is what prompted the New Yorker to interview him to begin with) it becomes clear that his attacks on Trump are based on ideological differences. In other words, if it were a multi-nationalist progressive with a 77-word vocabulary who was just elected we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    I'm obviously not suggesting Roth agrees with Trump's policies, but an argument is an argument, and the specific one you're referencing was about Trump himself. Find me a quote that says the idea of leaving NATO is wrong because Trump has childlike hands and I'll join you.

  26. #2198
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mqt View Post
    I'm obviously not suggesting Roth agrees with Trump's policies, but an argument is an argument, and the specific one you're referencing was about Trump himself. Find me a quote that says the idea of leaving NATO is wrong because Trump has childlike hands and I'll join you.
    I see what you are saying, but to me the ideological argument was implicit in the quoted passage. Both with the author's "Roosevelt Democrat" admission and the sideswipes of Nixon and Bush.

  27. #2199
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,440
    Thanked in
    3,829 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Runnin View Post
    The internment camps were ugly and unfair but it was war and I would've done the same thing.
    Not sure how you can condone internment.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  28. #2200
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    5,293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,324
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,728
    Thanked in
    1,066 Posts
    Memes people, memes.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to BedellBrave For This Useful Post:

    Runnin (01-23-2017)

Similar Threads

  1. Mallex Smith quote
    By GovClintonTyree in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2017, 11:06 PM
  2. Conservative Meme Thread
    By The Chosen One in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-17-2015, 10:16 PM
  3. Replies: 82
    Last Post: 02-19-2015, 01:19 PM
  4. FEEL MEME
    By Julio3000 in forum WILD WILD JOE WEST
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 10:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •