LA Grant

Okay, great. Where? I don't read every last post on this board and there's, what, 4-5 threads on this same subject most of them filled with useless posts like yours. A link to wherever the discussion is taking place would've been helpful, but I'm aware that's not your nature.

Dunno why this in-depth piece of reporting hasn't been posted here already, considering its relevance. It is a pretty thorough and well-written piece. The online version includes an audio link for those who don't want to read it all. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier No release date yet for the piss tape ☹️

Hahaha, no, that's not right. Another one of your false equivalencies at play. I'm afraid you don't know what !@#$ you're talking about.

lol, christ almighty, I don't know where to begin with you. If I write out the full explanation for why citing Occam's razor to Boyst's question of the NYT article is valid, then I'll have written paragraphs you won't read or respond to. The principle of Lucy's Football. If you want to go into the weeds of debating philosophy abstractly, that might be fun, but it should be a separate thread.

Again. You're describing yourself. I wish there were a mirror for brains. Federalist link. You posted it. I presented skepticism w/supporting evidence. You refuse to defend it, ignoring the skepticism, blindly swallowing it because it fits your partisan conspiracy theory. Defend it.

The explanation with fewer assumptions is the more likely one. How is that not Occam's razor, Sir Thomas? Are you struggling with definitions again, or do you care to explain?

Right, "both sides" are equally wrong. The Nazis and the Jews, both sides were wrong. "Auschwitz is a death camp" headline & "Hitler brings new jobs to Germany" headline would both be valid to you, I'm sure.

Remember when you posted that "CNN article" that was completely made up? "What will Grant & Gary say to this?" you crowed. Then when it was pointed out that the article didn't actually exist, that in fact the links took you to an article about cooking asparagus & a dating site, you pretended not to have meant it in the first place? That was cool.

Oh, there certainly is, you just have your head screwed on backwards. You still can't/won't defend your Federalist link, genius.

If you had the courage of your convictions, we could've saved ourselves a lot of time here if you'd just say your core belief — "2A prevents white genocide." Good lord. If you think it, then let it be known. Just say it. Have you gone door-to-door to let your neighbors know you support pedophiles & fear white genocide? You dangerously stupid mutant.

Occam's razor. He is what he is. The situation is exactly what it appears to be.

Ooooooooooooo, here we go. Push a little bit and then the truth comes out — sounds like you fear gun control because, in your mind, once that happens, all white people will become slaves?? "Euro-centric" is interesting, since I thought one of your arguments against gun reform was that America shouldn't look to Europe or other developed countries, despite their proven success with the measure; somehow white people are not enslaved throughout Europe even though they don't have unfettered legal access to guns like Americans. But it's "heritage" that reveals your true nature here. It really just goes back to everything I said a few posts ago. You lean on "Founders" in the same vein Westboro Baptist would use "God," as an unquestionable higher authority to "prove" that your Nationalist agenda is morally just. It's not based on reason but on dogma, and dogma can't be argued against. It is a hallmark of lower-order cognition. I bet if I kept pushing you I could get you to say that America was founded by white christians and should belong to white christians.

Clearly a sign that the President is ahead of the curve here. All will be revealed in time! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/us/politics/trump-witnesses-special-counsel-priebus-mcgahn.html

To keep things fair & balanced, of course. That and Soros pays per word.

Actually, I'm coming from the exact same place of honesty/petulance you were, with the same dishonorable tactic you employed. If you'd been approaching things with the aim of respect you claim, you'd either have understood my reluctance to answer when you pressed me, or you'd play fair when you're asked similar questions. So not only dishonorable then, but also dishonest. Your non-answer implies an answer, anyway. It's quite clear that you must be alone, not necessarily for the time spent here, but because who could be in a relationship with someone devoid of empathy for others? I hope you figure it out, honestly... if not the Deep State conspiracy, then at least some way to be happier in real life. Godspeed, Rhino.

Stop dodging. Answer the question. Are you alone? Do you have support in your life, a wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year? (If this badgering tactic seems familiar, you may recognize it as the same one you used on me, two separate times!)

Well Cinga, I hate to break it to you but the Nazis were not truthful about a great number of things. The Nazis were not socialists in anything other than name, just like "Republicans" aren't the upholders of the ideals of a republic; in fact, just the opposite. Their actions did, however, very much show them to be brutal nationalists. Nationalists, like many of the horde on this board, historically tend to use any other self-definition to disguise their intentions. They're not "white nationalists" but "patriots" or "true liberals" or "just want things to be the way they used to be." The Republican Party, and all of the conservatives, 'independents', 'true liberals,' 'libertarians', 'good christians', 'constitutional defenders', that fall within, are nationalists. It is a position of blind faith & loyalty. It is the idea that this country was always intended for them, and any "others" are enemies. Just like the Nationalists in Germany, the failing American right has attempted to claim they are being persecuted, that they are under attack, and the only way to maintain their Nationalist agenda is to fight back by any means necessary. You're not wrong about one thing, though — the American left has so often used the "Nazi" label for the right that it has lost some impact, even if the shoe did fit. Now of course we have actual American Nazis. They still like to use the "socialist" label though, though they have also clarified their position. http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-democrats-socialists-alt-right-650572 Frankly, I was expecting the "but Hitler took away guns" counterargument to happen much earlier than page 28. It's one of the, like, 10 weak & emotional counter-arguments to common sense reform and a common enough "gotcha" attempt by conservatives that of course there's already a Snopes piece thoroughly dissecting it. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ (Can't wait for the chorus of "lol Snopes?? Read a trustworthy source like the Federalist") You don't even need Snopes to understand why the National Socialist party were not "socialist" but that would require understanding definitions and history, instead of just yapping how you do while proving the opposite. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/ Bottom line: You, nor the group who agree with you, are not fighting for human "rights" in any intellectually honest way. Not even close. You're fighting for your group's right to rule, a right that you believe is divine, merely substituting "Founders" for "God." It doesn't even matter that actually reading the Constitution makes it abundantly obvious that the Founders' dream of America was for people to reject the dogmatic adherence you insist upon, that the goal was for people to be entitled to happiness, to have the ability to determine their lives for themselves, and for society to do the same in broader ways, through a process of rigorous debate, a dream they had that has clearly been deferred and inverted. Not unlike the Bible-thumpers who use God to advocate hateful actions, you're looking at a tiny piece of bark and thinking you see the forest. The reverse of this is usually the claim that "well liberals are intolerant of my beliefs" which is more of the previously-seen tactic of conflation, as though "rejecting minorities claims for equal status" is somehow the same as "rejecting that rejection." (See: Trump suggesting there's fault on "both sides" between white supremacists & those who oppose white supremacy; would he also say there was fault on "both sides" between Jews and Nazis in WWII Germany?) In your group's mind (as demonstrated repeatedly in this thread), the question is already settled. There can be no other way — no matter how destructive a certain way has proven to be, no matter how many people suffer unnecessarily, no matter how many people support trying to solve the problem. Universal Background Checks make sense for everyone and are a fair compromise... except to Nationalists, who are offended at the mere suggestion. Because 'God' gave you guns, and that is that. Stop dodging. Answer the direct question you were asked for once. Are you alone? Do you have support in your life, a wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year?

So anything left of "homophobe" is considered "liberal" on PPP... got it. I suppose "conservative on all issues but doesn't say the N word in public" is what qualifies as "independent" here, too; that would explain some of the strange self-identities. Similarly, your insinuation of gay as pejorative is sad but whatever. It's just funny that Rhino would be considered "liberal" since his overall views make him the left version of a RINO. Ha, it almost fits the screen name: a deranged RINO. If his posts here are indicative of the research he does for work, that is concerning. I wouldn't trust Greg to research a snowcone without coming back with some conspiracy on fluoride. Still, I do like your manner of sticking up for him. It's kinda sweet in a little brother kind of way. Maybe I should back off. Certainly, I agree I should stop posting here. As fun as it is to dunk on fools, and this page alone shows how easy some of y'all make it, it's still a pretty bad habit to gaze into the abyss this long. Well done, 3rdnIng, your post did provide a little perspective. I see that I'm trying to talk policy with a bunch of versions of this guy:

I wonder if he'll meet with the Bills in FA. I'm sure someone else will pay big for his potential but... who knows, and the Bills still need a speedy deep threat WR. Wouldn't that be funny if he came back at a modest price? More realistically, I have a feeling he's going to end up with the Jags, Cowboys or Saints.

"Would you trade Tyrod+picks to Packers for Rodgers?"

How in the world do posters on this board think you are liberal?? All I have seen from you in the last two weeks are links to op-eds from the ghost of Billy Buckley & links from the blog of the plagiarist that couldn't hack it for 3 days at WaPo. Not to mention you're the main author of the 1000 page Tom Clancy fan-fiction book club bukkake. Good lord, if you're liberal relative to the rest of PPP, is everyone else to the right of Goebbels, or seriously wtf?

LOL, I would say that you need to verify your sources. Neither of those links take you to a CNN article. One takes you to a blog about how to cook asparagus. The other takes you to beehive.bumble.com. Googling the copy does not produce a CNN article. Searching keywords on CNN also does not produce this article. Is there actually a CNN article? Or did you just see this posted somewhere and assume it must be true? FTFY, dumbass. That's cute. I'll make a deal. If you'd like to bring the conversation to a less aggressive tone, I'll meet you there. All you need to do is apologize for being wrong, dishonest, dishonorable, and irresponsible. You're an idiot. Seems like I struck a nerve by simply asking you to defend the Federalist article you posted. I pointed out a reason to be skeptical of it, since you had previously mentioned the importance of being skeptical of the NY Times. You said I misinterpreted it. All of the top commenters of the article interpreted it the same way I did. You insist that you are somehow having words put in your mouth. I want to help you, Rhino, but y'know, maybe I don't know enough about you. Do you have support in your life? A wife or girlfriend/partner of at least one year? You asked me two invasive personal questions in our discussions the last two weeks, so please allow me the same fair & balanced opportunity. As with your questions, I need to know before I decide if it's worth continuing this. If you feel uncomfortable answering, as I did with your questions, don't worry — I will use your exact same method of badgering non-stop until you provide us with an answer.

Still waiting for your defense of The Federalist, y'know, the standard of journalistic ethics that you posted then doubled-down on!

Alas, poor Rhino, the woefully misinformed who believes that all facts are created equal. It's why no one can get through to you — anyone pointing out your wrongness is a snob. Since you're here... Repeatedly, I asked you to clarify the convictions you claim to hold so courageously. Repeatedly, they were ignored. Why is it wrong to be skeptical of the Federalist article? Why do you keep insisting that it is not implying what is is clearly implying, an implication that all of the article's commenters made explicit? Why do you keep dodging this line of questioning, particularly when just the other day you were jawing on about how it was every American's responsibility to question their media? You told me we can't trust the NY Times, but you fully endorse The Federalist, even insisting that the article is saying something different than what most of the blog's own readers are interpreting. Curious why that is, particularly as The Federalist is not reputable in the least, nor was it ever, as it was started in 2013 by the idiot who got fired by The Washington Post after only 3 days for multiple accusations of plagiarism.

Well, no. Even a cursory glance through my posts show that I'm a reader. Unlike some other posters, I'm able to distinguish fact from fiction, and the differences between the Federalist and the NY Times. The reactions to them have mostly been the usual conservative approach to information that doesn't fit their entrenched worldview: "lalalaala i can't heeaaaaaar yoooou" or attempts to scream away the facts. The neat thing about message boards is the words are there. In real life, the conservative approach is to literally shout down the opposing argument, or to simply shut it out, as broadcast nightly on Fox News.