You're going to great lengths to pick a nit. Regardless of who originated the quote, it remains valid. I can't believe you've wasted so many posts to play the GOTCHA game.
OT - Matt Light on Laura Ingraham this eve. (9/11)*
- Thread starter elwood71
- Start date
You're going to great lengths to pick a nit. Regardless of who originated the quote, it remains valid. I can't believe you've wasted so many posts to play the GOTCHA game.
Yikes, relax this isn’t an AIM chatroom.
First, there is no record of Churchill ever saying that quote (or any derivative of it).
Then you concluded your rambling by attributing the original source as Sam Adams. At best, among all the other fleet of historical names correctly and incorrectly tied to this saying, it’s possibly linked to John Adams.
I don’t care about the quote, but it’s so painfully stupid to watch people use fake quotes because they’re too excited that it’s cool, funny, or helps their political cause. It’s a symptom of how easily influence people get on Facebook, Twitter, message boards, etc.
Again, I would be the first lefty to criticize the corporate democrats. And I know black people who weren't thrilled with how Obama served his donors first before the people (my girlfriend included). But to say Trump has done more for the black community is probably the most hilarious thing I've ever read... The whole reason I entered this conversation was because somebody was making fun of minority students for feeling threatened when a president had just been elected who literally encouraged violence and made white supremacists feel comfortable. If that doesn't bother you, then you are not an ally.
First, I don't consider a bunch of cops being executed as garbage.
Sorry, those are just incidents I remembered. I'm sure if you'd like to prove me wrong, you'll do the google search. I don't have a reference library in my brain for everything I've learned over 70 years. If you do, I'm impressed.
Lol, says the manic who’s logged 31 posts in this thread alone.
Reminds me of my favorite quote, “People who can’t discern simple facts vs lies shouldn’t have access to message boards until they can control their confirmation bias and not get their jimmies rustled when reality calls them out.” - Sir Winston Churchill, circa 2016
And yet she received more votes than every white male presidential candidate in the history of the US. The electoral college is a problem.
Other than winning the Presidential election, what specifically did Obama do to help Black people?
Agreed 10000%, but the only way it'll ever change is if it's a republican who loses because of it.
That said, I still think any other candidate gets those couple thousand votes needed in the rust belt for the electoral college victory.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...merican-community-during-obama-administration
One simple google search man. Or is this just left wing nonsense?
I'm just on here having fun. I am glad that you can count to 31 though. This one will make 32 to satisfy your OCD.
In the grand scheme of things, what difference did it really make, if that quote was attributed to Churchill (I guess that's achieving urban myth proportions), John Adams, or Joe the homeless guy on the corner? Did it really require your dogged pursuit for XX posts (I'm not so anal, that I feel compelled to count yours)?
I'm impressed that you got a Churchill quote from the grave.
Last edited:
The Electoral College is doing exactly what it was intended to do. Without it, Presidential candidate would spend all their time in only about 20% of the states with the highest population. The Midwest and the near West, would never see another Presidential candidate. Those states would indeed just be flyover country.
Last edited:
You're apparently going to an internet site to "fact check" the origin of quotes. You're not going to original source documents. So you don't know whether Churchill ever said it, in a speech or conversation, or wrote it? What you do know, and I agreed with you about, is that Churchill did not originate the quote.
Many attribute the origins to Francois Quizot, but others -- apparently not recognized on the site you're looking at -- attribute the origins to Sam Adams. Still others claim it originated with Edmund Burke, although no one has documented it in Burke's writings. But that doesn't mean he didn't use the term in conversation or say it in a speech. At least one American newspaper stated in the 1980s that Churchill was known to use the phrase. Maybe they were incorrect? I don't know, and you don't know. But that's almost certainly how the misattribution to Churchill emerged in error as "common knowledge" during the 1980s.
Regardless, the only thing fake is the attribution to Churchill as its origin, which I did not do, but would be an understandable error by anyone given it was once accepted as common knowledge. The quote, itself, has been around for up to two hundred years and retains its meaning.
Last edited:
The electoral college was enacted because the elites feared the public couldn't make a truly informed decision. It's an attempt at limiting freedom. It is unfairly weighted toward rural areas (even moreso now than when it was first established), and my guess is you would be all for the abolition if it were the other way around. You want a viable 3rd party? Can't happen with the electoral college. Ranked choice voting by way of popular vote is the best system by far. But guess who doesn't want it...
If HRC wasn't so arrogant and actually bothered to campaign in those states, she probably would have won. I knew she was in trouble, when she first kicked off her campaign. When she was on the Scooby bus tour and she stopped at a Chipotle in Ohio. If it had been Bill Clinton, he would have been chatting with everyone in the restaurant, trying to win them over. HRC went into the restaurant wearing dark glasses and a scarf over her head. It was the first time I'd ever seen a Presidential candidate trying to be covert on a campaign tour. I guess she was afraid that she'd get Deplorable Cooties.
She felt that she was entitled to be President, and she felt it was beneath her to actually have to interact with mere common people. She got what she deserved and the country was saved.
Had she been elected, all the corruption in the FBI/Justice Department would have been buried. So much for equal justice under the law...
Getting tired, so I'll read it tomorrow and get back to you. I'm sure he won't try to take credit for anything he didn't do.
I'm not going to argue with you about HRC, because I had to hold my nose whilst voting for her. But, I think the best thing she ever did was NOT campaign in those states, because the more and more she talked, the more her popularity dropped. Now, if the MSM hadn't been instructed to not cover Bernie Sanders' campaign, this is all a moot point and the country would have truly been saved.
Lol. Just like Trump never takes credit for anything he didn't do. I'm sure a lot of the stuff listed could be attributed to natural progression, but there is also a lot of actual legislation which proves you wrong..
So you're saying HRC didn't like it from the beginning?
I will always support the Electoral college, because without it, a lot of states become irrelevant in Presidential elections. I'm surprised that someone from the Left would be so happy to disenfranchise multiple states, when I hear the Left constantly complaining that requiring picture IDs would disenfranchise minority voters. A bit disingenuous, don't you think?
So instead we disenfranchise liberals in Texas and conservatives in California... States would become irrelevant, but do you know who wouldn't be? The people.
If you can't let go of the overly complicated and rigged towards your side of politics EC, would you at least be willing to readjust the values so votes more closely represent the size of each state's population? Take a look at this and see if there is something wrong here...
https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/
https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/
In your ideal world, a citizen of Arizona has a vote power of 207.05, while a Californian has 0.37. That's insane.
So the answer is no, you don’t have a source linking those killings to black lives matter.
Here's a link to NYT's article on the 2016 Dallas Police shooting: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.html
You can look for the others on your own.
You must have a short memory.
Once again, you're completely wrong in your understanding. The vast majority of political violence comes from the right wing. It's not even close.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/
If this isn't just the perfect example of what we have now in politics. We have an actual study, real research with data. That doesn't work on right wingers, it doesn't' fit within your preconceived notions so of course it's wrong or biased. Even though you can't back up your claims or prove any wrongdoing on the part of the research, they're wrong and you're right because of reasons.
For someone that pretends to not spout Fox News talking points and says he deals in facts you sure do end up doing the exact opposite. This was a Fox News talking points parroted from the President that's not even close to being true.
Get real. "The Nation" is about as objective on anything political as the The Daily Student is on IU basketball.
If you think every "think tank / academic center" study is objective, you're fooling yourself. Data can be made to tell many stories, intentionally or not.
This game goes both ways -- there are conservative think tanks like the Indiana Family Institute that have sponsored similar studies, found different results, and been labeled as Hate Groups by the SPLC as a result.
The Nation is just the site, the data comes from other sources. You can find all the information you want if you took a minute to look it up. Right wing violence is incredibly more common than left wing. You can't even compare the two there's such a vast difference. Trying to compare actual studies with the Indiana Family Institute, you can't be serious. Curt Smith is a disgraceful person.What kind of research did his group do on the topic,Ii'd love to see it.
Last edited:
I’m sure if the popular vote was the goal this gap could have been closed, but the objective is to win the electoral college and that is what happened
Anything coming through The Nation's website, regardless of whether it originated with The Nation, has zero objective credibility, just like anything coming through the SPLC. You've said a lot about yourself by calling Curt Smith a disgraceful person ... and none of it good. You have real serious issues.
Curt Smith is a scumbag of the highest order. If you're a white male Christian than you're good with Curt, anything else and he's working toward policies to hurt you. His work during RFRA was disgraceful. Again, you want to ignore actual research, real data, and instead put your faith in something like the Indiana Family Institute which has no credibility and doesn't pretend to be non-partisan in any way.
Right, that's what white male Christians do -- wake up every morning thinking, what can I do to hurt those who are not white male Christians?! Is it not possible that Christian organizations such as the IFI, or others, support policies they believe will benefit society in general? Not every issue is a zero sum gain, where one party has to lose if the other gains. You're views are right out of the Progressive Leftists' propaganda. And you can't see that someone who disagrees with you on this might be a well-meaning person. Instead, your warped mind views them as "disgraceful scumbags," or worse. What would you do with these irredeemables, this "basket of deplorables," if you had half a chance?! We know what Lenin and Stalin and Mao did with them! Would you stop short of that? Maybe, but too many like you wouldn't. Thank you for demonstrating that history is not dead, and we are still in danger of repeating some of the worst tragedies of the 20th Century if the Radical Leftists rise to power in the West. Arguments that the Radical Right is on the rise exist mainly in the minds of Leftists and are intended only to camouflage the rise of the Radical Left, which is evident on almost ever college campus and at many major public events.
Not all do that, but some do. Curt Smith and his group are among the worst. I've read his op-ed's I've seen his group involved in public policy. The "benefit society in general" to them mainly consists of turning gay people into 2nd class citizens. My cousin is gay and he should be able to live his life with his husband just like anyone else. Curt Smith and his ilk can go to hell.
You are entirely delusional, using words like radical leftists. That's the go to word for those who's minds have been turned to mush through propaganda. The right wing has gone off the rails, Trump is a perfect example of what they've become, no redeemable qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure there are many you'd send straight to Hell if it was up to you. And Radical Leftists don't exit, right? And those demonstrators wearing all black, with ski masks, disrupting free speech on college campuses, beating up faculty, threatening fellow students, etc. -- they're just a fabrication of Fox News, right?
Those folks are there in opposition to the people on the other side wearing swastika's and chanting for white supremacy. Says a lot about you and others that you have a problem with the opposition, not the ones calling for the deaths and/or removal of minorities, jews, and gay people.
Last edited:
I think we can all agree that white supremicists, nazi's, blm's calling for police officers to be killed, antifa, and Maxine Waters are all evil. Amirite?
Similar threads
