TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place

[sho nuff]

1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Can't see urbanhack getting up from that knockdown.

You were saying?

[John Blutarsky]

8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

As quoted where?  Since there was no actual link.  And where has it come out of Warrens mouth?  Again, since there was no link provided.

Lmao

[John Blutarsky]

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

I dod and there is only one link to the CEO and its an article talking about a Veritas thing...excise me that i dint take what Okeefe says or an article about and Okeefe produces as anything factual.

In addition when you make a claim about something with a quite, its expected you would actually link to where it came from.  When people don't, usually its because they are trying to hide that they got it from what amounts to a bogus source like Okeefe.

They do have an edit feature here. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

3 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

a regulatory plan aimed at breaking up some of America’s largest tech companies, including Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook.

I disagree with this and it’s just the flip side of Trump who wants to do the same thing..

Edited July 3, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[Max Power]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

James O’Keefe deleted the YouTube clip, that’s why you can’t find it. Here’s the Daily Mail on it.

This is Gennai’s explanation of the background and context.

That is Gennai's version. She didnt deny saying it. Called the video edited and said the context was wrong. 

I guess people can come to their own conclusions.

[Widbil83]

1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Can't see urbanhack getting up from that knockdown.

I’m just glad I got to see the TKO because I’ve had that poster on ignore for a while.  I should report him for a personal attack, god knows all us have had vacations for far less.

[sho nuff]

1 minute ago, Widbil83 said:

I’m just glad I got to see the TKO because I’ve had that poster on ignore for a while.  I should report him for a personal attack, god knows all us have had vacations for far less.

Personal attack?  Also, may want to read past favreco’s premature declaration of a knockdown.  Things dont go so well for that post or the quote given.

[Mister CIA]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

That is Gennai's version. She didnt deny saying it. Called the video edited and said the context was wrong. 

I guess people can come to their own conclusions.

So you're using her quote to prop up your argument, but then dismissing her words when she states that the video was edited and presented her opinion out of context. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Mister CIA

[Ramblin Wreck]

3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Personal attack?  Also, may want to read past favreco’s premature declaration of a knockdown.  Things dont go so well for that post or the quote given.

No one named FavreCo posted.  We shouldn't be making up nicknames for other posters.  Be better.

[Mister CIA]

2 hours ago, lod001 said:

Can't see urbanhack getting up from that knockdown.

Scroll up for a knockdown... https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776645-trump-2020-hq-the-great-place/?do=findComment&comment=21994238

[SaintsInDome2006]

40 minutes ago, Max Power said:

That is Gennai's version. She didnt deny saying it. Called the video edited and said the context was wrong. 

I guess people can come to their own conclusions.

I’m kind of curious about something. In the Fox thread you implied that Fox isn’t held to any kind of standard of objectivity, and actually I kind of agree. Free speech and all that. But tv licenses after all are technically bound by a public commitment to factual reporting and decency. I don’t think internet is bound by such regulations, but why do you (or any Trump supporters (not that you are, no idea)) think that Google or FB or other tech giants should be held to an equal or higher standard than Fox which is? TIA.

[Mister CIA]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m kind of curious about something. In the Fox thread you implied that Fox isn’t held to any kind of standard of objectivity, and actually I kind of agree. Free speech and all that. But tv licenses after all are technically bound by a public commitment to factual reporting and decency. I don’t think internet is bound by such regulations, but why do you (or any Trump supporters (not that you are, no idea)) think that Google or FB or other tech giants should be held to an equal or higher standard than Fox which is? TIA.

Getting owned by the likes of SiD drove me to stop day-drinking.

[timschochet]

4 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

What’s the deal with Liz Warren wanting to bust up all the big tech companies?  Doesn’t she know these people are actively shadow banning, censuring and deplatforming people on the other side who are disagree with her?  This seems like a very bizarre way to treat people who are helping you.  

I know you’re trying to be sarcastic here but you actually raise a great point which I’ve made for years: leftists like Warren have a knee jerk attitude against all corporations, and they fail to recognize the tremendous power such corporations have to do positive change. 

The current state of our liberal, politically correct society (which I personally view very favorably) is largely due to corporations reacting to the free marketplace. 

[Mister CIA]

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

leftists like Warren have a knee jerk attitude against all corporations, and they fail to recognize the tremendous power such corporations have to do positive change. 

2008 says HI, Tim!

[BigSteelThrill]

57 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

So your using her quote to prop up your argument, but then dismissing her words when she states that the video was edited and presented her opinion out of context. 

Awesome. 

[dkp993]

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

I dod and there is only one link to the CEO and its an article talking about a Veritas thing...excise me that i dint take what Okeefe says or an article about and Okeefe produces as anything factual.

Sho, any more spelling errors and you'll have me thinking this is actually a Trump account used as anti Trump propaganda.   Proof reading is your friend.    

[tonydead]

Quote

"Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn’t exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world," Warren wrote in a post on the blogging platform Medium. "It’s a great story — but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets."

 

[GoBirds]

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

 

Loving the new pic!

 

[sho nuff]

6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Sho, any more spelling errors and you'll have me thinking this is actually a Trump account used as anti Trump propaganda.   Proof reading is your friend.    

Sure thing.  

[dkp993]

Just now, sho nuff said:

Sure thing.  

Trust me I hate to be that guy, I’m probably the worst speller on the board ( I know it’s not a spelling thing just making a point) but a few of your posts are brutal.  

[sho nuff]

Just now, dkp993 said:

Trust me I hate to be that guy, I’m probably the worst speller on the board ( I know it’s not a spelling thing just making a point) but a few of your posts are brutal.  

I agree.  Im not arguing with you.  I know in my haste I sometimes don't catch things. 

[John Blutarsky]

Just now, dkp993 said:

Trust me I hate to be that guy, I’m probably the worst speller on the board ( I know it’s not a spelling thing just making a point) but a few of your posts are brutal.  

I have no idea why he doesn’t know how to use the edit feature.

[John Blutarsky]

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

I agree.  Im not arguing with you.  I know in my haste I sometimes don't catch things. 

It’s not hard to read what you wrote....why the haste? 

[Mister CIA]

12 minutes ago, tonydead said:

 

Cool avatar, you.

[tonydead]

7 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I agree.  Im not arguing with you.  I know in my haste I sometimes don't catch things. 

Too...many....posts I don't....agree...with!!!!

[tonydead]

14 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Loving the new pic!

 

 

3 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

Cool avatar, you.

 

The story behind it is even better!!!

[Mister CIA]

2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

 

 

The story behind it is even better!!!

I think you're a low water mark.

[badmojo1006]

33 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

I have no idea why he doesn’t know how to use the edit feature.

i have no idea why you keep obsessing with sho nuff

[John Blutarsky]

Just now, badmojo1006 said:

i have no idea why you keep obsessing with sho nuff

I have no idea why you keep obsessing about replying to sho nuff. 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Just now, sho nuff said:

Same as he has always been...odd how those who complain about moderation say nothing about that.

What rule is he breaking responding to you?

[SaintsInDome2006]

10 hours ago, Mystery Achiever said:

Without looking at the study details, I would guess that has more to do with predilections of who chooses to go to the parades,rather than being brainwashed by them.;)

But here is your 4th of July trivia; the following from the article has some fallacies.. Adams wrote that about July 2 being a day of celebration.. The vote on the Declaration of Independence was on July 2nd, with adoption taking place on the 4th. Document was signed in August.

---->   On July 3, 1776, he wrote that the Fourth "ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward, forevermore."

I just thought this deserved a full quote:

Quote

 

But on the other Hand, the Delay of this Declaration to this Time, has many great Advantages attending it. -- The Hopes of Reconciliation, which were fondly entertained by Multitudes of honest and well meaning tho weak and mistaken People, have been gradually and at last totally extinguished. -- Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphletts, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in Town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. -- This will cement the Union, and avoid those Heats and perhaps Convulsions which might have been occasioned, by such a Declaration Six Months ago.

But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

 

John Adams, to his wife.

[knowledge dropper]

12 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

What’s the deal with Liz Warren wanting to bust up all the big tech companies?  Doesn’t she know these people are actively shadow banning, censuring and deplatforming people on the other side who are disagree with her?  This seems like a very bizarre way to treat people who are helping you.  

Shaking them down for campaign donations.  Once they give, the issue goes away.  

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

29 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Shaking them down for campaign donations.  Once they give, the issue goes away.  

Can you explain?

[dkp993]

9 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Can you explain?

I believe he’s implying blackmail 

[FBG Moderator]

8 hours ago, Mister CIA said:

I think you're a low water mark.

Be way more cool

[knowledge dropper]

29 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I believe he’s implying blackmail 

That’s your interpretation. To me it’s Politics 101.  

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by knowledge dropper

[Widbil83]

CNN viewers must have been shocked to hear this!  It “pains him.” 

Quote

Fareed Zakaria, the CNN anchor, on Sunday said it “pains” him to admit it, but President Trump was correct that the U.S. finds itself in a crisis with asylum system and the number of new arrivals.

The host of “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” was also critical of asylum rules that he called “vague, laxed and being gamed.” Zakaria said asylum was initially intended for a small number of people in the most extreme circumstances, not as a process of immigration in itself. He said the rules need to be “substantially tightened."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnns-fareed-zakaria-says-trump-was-right-about-asylum-system-pains-me-to-say

[Mystery Achiever]

7 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just thought this deserved a full quote:

John Adams, to his wife.

  I'm volunteering at Independence Mall later today, so have been trying to refresh my knowledge. Happy 4th!

[SaintsInDome2006]

1 minute ago, Mystery Achiever said:

  I'm volunteering at Independence Mall later today, so have been trying to refresh my knowledge. Happy 4th!

Very cool. Happy 4th!

[dkp993]

1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

That’s your interpretation. To me it’s Politics 101.  

 

ie blackmail.  

[Max Power]

10 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m kind of curious about something. In the Fox thread you implied that Fox isn’t held to any kind of standard of objectivity, and actually I kind of agree. Free speech and all that. But tv licenses after all are technically bound by a public commitment to factual reporting and decency. I don’t think internet is bound by such regulations, but why do you (or any Trump supporters (not that you are, no idea)) think that Google or FB or other tech giants should be held to an equal or higher standard than Fox which is? TIA.

I'm not sure I totally understand the question. I saw this late last night (for me) and was hoping to get a clearer take on it this morning. 

I don't think Google or Facebook should be held to a higher standard. They are companies that can do what they want. If I recall correctly the Dem party was the one upset with Facebook for not regulating itself. 

Now I would absolutely hate for Google to take a political side and I'm not sure they have. I will say they wield more power than most people can comprehend. It is scary to think what they could do if they ever choose to.

What has people like me on edge is that we've seen liberal politics begin to creep up in places like Twitter and YouTube already.  I dont know everything that people say and why some get banned over others, but there are some clear examples of inconsistent moderation on those platforms. 

Joe Rogan had the Twitter CEO and some conservative activist on his show at the same time. The. Conservative came with facts and examples of these inconsistencies for over an hour with the Twitter CEO never giving a real answer. Sticking to one or two company lines for each response. Anyone watching that exchange objectively would come away with the conclusion that Twitter moderation is inconsistent at best and most likely slanted to the left.

A recent example is following the Antifa attacks on Ngo, there is a liberal activist saying it was a good thing and people should continue to milkshake all facists. It is a terms of service violation to promote violence yet Twitter doesnt take action. 

To address the fox news comment I made yesterday. I was only saying a comedy based show was able to laugh at itself for how they take on each situation depending who it is about.  CNN on the other hand doesnt own up to that thing as evidenced in the Don Lemon and Don Jr conspiracy theory 

[GoBirds]

21 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I'm not sure I totally understand the question. I saw this late last night (for me) and was hoping to get a clearer take on it this morning. 

I don't think Google or Facebook should be held to a higher standard. They are companies that can do what they want. If I recall correctly the Dem party was the one upset with Facebook for not regulating itself. 

Now I would absolutely hate for Google to take a political side and I'm not sure they have. I will say they wield more power than most people can comprehend. It is scary to think what they could do if they ever choose to.

What has people like me on edge is that we've seen liberal politics begin to creep up in places like Twitter and YouTube already.  I dont know everything that people say and why some get banned over others, but there are some clear examples of inconsistent moderation on those platforms. 

Joe Rogan had the Twitter CEO and some conservative activist on his show at the same time. The. Conservative came with facts and examples of these inconsistencies for over an hour with the Twitter CEO never giving a real answer. Sticking to one or two company lines for each response. Anyone watching that exchange objectively would come away with the conclusion that Twitter moderation is inconsistent at best and most likely slanted to the left.

A recent example is following the Antifa attacks on Ngo, there is a liberal activist saying it was a good thing and people should continue to milkshake all facists. It is a terms of service violation to promote violence yet Twitter doesnt take action. 

To address the fox news comment I made yesterday. I was only saying a comedy based show was able to laugh at itself for how they take on each situation depending who it is about.  CNN on the other hand doesnt own up to that thing as evidenced in the Don Lemon and Don Jr conspiracy theory 

I think you do recall this correctly and it led to years long Russia conspiracy excuses........interesting that after all that now the left doesn't want them regulated?

[SaintsInDome2006]

56 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I'm not sure I totally understand the question. I saw this late last night (for me) and was hoping to get a clearer take on it this morning. 

I don't think Google or Facebook should be held to a higher standard. They are companies that can do what they want. If I recall correctly the Dem party was the one upset with Facebook for not regulating itself. 

Now I would absolutely hate for Google to take a political side and I'm not sure they have. I will say they wield more power than most people can comprehend. It is scary to think what they could do if they ever choose to.

What has people like me on edge is that we've seen liberal politics begin to creep up in places like Twitter and YouTube already.  I dont know everything that people say and why some get banned over others, but there are some clear examples of inconsistent moderation on those platforms. 

Joe Rogan had the Twitter CEO and some conservative activist on his show at the same time. The. Conservative came with facts and examples of these inconsistencies for over an hour with the Twitter CEO never giving a real answer. Sticking to one or two company lines for each response. Anyone watching that exchange objectively would come away with the conclusion that Twitter moderation is inconsistent at best and most likely slanted to the left.

A recent example is following the Antifa attacks on Ngo, there is a liberal activist saying it was a good thing and people should continue to milkshake all facists. It is a terms of service violation to promote violence yet Twitter doesnt take action. 

To address the fox news comment I made yesterday. I was only saying a comedy based show was able to laugh at itself for how they take on each situation depending who it is about.  CNN on the other hand doesnt own up to that thing as evidenced in the Don Lemon and Don Jr conspiracy theory 

It doesn't matter if it's a Fox comedy show or a pundit show (and frankly I think Gutfeld & Co hone closer to reality than say Hannity, Ingraham, or Carlson) or if it's pure news. The reality is they are indeed subject to FCC regulation.

The internet, including its search engines, are not. In fact this was at the core of the net neutrality debate. But right now Google/FB etc are not regulated.

So they are not legally held to even the same standard as Fox, and Fox is permitted to be as partisan as it likes. So I don't see the point because even FCC regulated companies like that are permitted to be as wildly partisan as they like. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[SaintsInDome2006]

21 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

interesting that after all that now the left doesn't want them regulated?

Somewhere someone made the point that Warren is advocating that Google and FB be regulated via antitrust. Trump has been pushing the same thing.

Now I might tell you that the president you support himself supports state intervention in what are essentially free speech platforms but you wouldn't believe me, now would you?

Edited July 3, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[FF Ninja]

22 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Or the democrat debate thread where trump supporters complain about how we will pay for things but never bat an eye about how Trump pay for his things (or care about how much debt we are racking up in a good economy).

After lurking for a bit, I've read the past 5-6 pages and this is the comment that needs to be highlighted.

As someone who is neither a conservative or a liberal (voted 3rd party last time), I feel like I'm a bit like Varys - I just want what's good for the realm. But it seems there's a common misperception among the pro-Trump crowd that anyone who is against Trump is a liberal (I'm not) and/or looking for handouts (the wife and I both make very good money and have no debt). One need only look at recent Congress voting patterns (scroll down a little in the comments) to see that there's basically the far right/sell outs and everybody else. The democratic party now consists of everyone from moderate conservatives to socialists. We desperately need more than two parties, but that's another story.

Personally, I'm adamantly against Bernie's free college for everyone and Warren's student debt forgiveness ideas. I think they've got some decent ideas for funding them that we should implement, but instead of using that funding towards those programs we should use it towards balancing the budget.

That being said, it's so painful to hear these two phrases:
"Hurr durr, the economy is so great under Trump."
"Hurr durr, the budget will be screwed if a dem gets elected."

News flash, you people currently have a man with six bankruptcies under his belt who was America's biggest financial loser over a decade in office. It should be no surprise that he's running up twin deficits (federal and trade). Obama (love him, hate him, or whatever - it's not important) had to spend money to get out of an inherited recession, however, Trump has increased the deficits over Obama's during a good ecomony as sho nuff touched on. This is insane. He claimed he was going to balance the budget when campaigning, but he's actually made it worse. The dude is straight up financially incompetent. The economy was swinging upwards when he took office, oil price luckily went up for him, and he's recklessly repealed every EPA regulation he can which obviously helps our related industries at the detriment of the environment. The current economy is not a feather in his cap. It's a combination of those listed factors. The spending almost certainly will NOT get worse if a democrat is elected because it is already atrocious. 

Side note: if you're still a climate change denier in 2019, you need to be fed to a starving polar bear. 

P.S. You guys really should look at those votes from the House and Senate - it's very illuminating. Net Neutrality is such a simple example - the majority of EVERYONE's constituents wanted to keep net neutrality, so it's quite telling about those representatives who voted against it.

Edit: fixed a term that was too insensitive for some

Edited July 3, 2019 by FF Ninja
snowflakes

[SaintsInDome2006]

47 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

If I recall correctly the Dem party was the one upset with Facebook for not regulating itself. 

 

47 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

I think you do recall this correctly and it led to years long Russia conspiracy excuses

I think you're a little confused. At best you can claim that Mueller found that the campaign-state coordination/conspiracy claims went unproven. 

The Russian interference claim was thoroughly proven. In fact what Gennai was actually discussing was this policy by Google about halting state sponsored activity. That would be a voluntary, corporate measure. This is the sort of thing that conservatives support - opposing foreign adversaries and supporting independent commercial activity. Conservatives do not support federal intervention in corporate speech, or they simply stop being conservatives.

Edited July 3, 2019 by SaintsInDome2006

[Widbil83]

Yeah I stopped reading after the “MAGATs” dig. I should have stopped reading at “I’m a 3rd party voter” though probably.  Not sure who this guy thinks he’s fooling here.

[FF Ninja]

1 minute ago, Widbil83 said:

Yeah I stopped reading

Typical

[identikit]

20 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

One of my few pro-Trump friends self-imposed the word (was the first I'd heard of it). But he's pretty self-deprecating, so I don't actually have a feel for how the rest of them take it.

I think you know.

[FF Ninja]

3 minutes ago, identikit said:

I think you know.

It seems clear now, but I'm sure they're glad we're all avoiding discussing the real issue here. I'm honestly not sure which side has more snowflakes.