Link, please.

[carmenjonze]

Look at this Marsha Blackburn coward.


viewtopic.php?p=26109#p26109

The whole “damage the psyche” concept came from a article posted by the Prof.

Find the quote and link it.


viewtopic.php?p=26112#p26112

You are big on reading. It’s in the thread. Read.


[It's not in the thread.]


viewtopic.php?p=26109#p26109

viewtopic.php?p=26126#p26126

viewtopic.php?p=26136#p26136

viewtopic.php?p=26150#p26150

viewtopic.php?p=26154#p26154

viewtopic.php?p=26157#p26157

viewtopic.php?p=26160#p26160

viewtopic.php?p=26162#p26162


viewtopic.php?p=26164#p26164

Yeah well you are in no position to be making demands are you?

I am in such a position.

Your problem is your inability to back up what you say.

But I do so enjoy our semi annual chats. Have a wonderful day.

Watched the video, yet? All you have to do is click a link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes


These conservative men are freaks. Retirement age with a lifetime of chosen ignorance, and the emotional development of 8 year olds. :problem:

[Number6]

One of the reasons carmen, gounion, myself, and others on this board ask for a link is to verify what the poster posted/claimed. During my AF career, there was a mantra used throughout the AF and that went something like this; "If you didn't document it it didn't happen." This was important be it training folders ( I've got a story about that but that's for later), inventories, maintenance of equipment, etc... I was visiting another base to see how one of my former troops was doing and while there I ran into one of my troops when we were stationed in South Korea. She was a MSgt Sgt (E-7) and she had a young airman with her. She told me they were doing a inventory of medical equipment and then she had her airman tell me how they did the inventory and the airman replied "If I can't see it and touch it, it isn't there" and then the MSgt pointed to me and said "That's who I learned that from." The point is by seeing and touching the equipment they were verifying it was there and accounted for. The same goes for providing a link; it's for verifying something posted/claimed.

[ProfX]

It used to be in the rules of the board to provide your sources. Of course, right now, we are operating without formal rules.

That said, it's still something reasonable to request of someone. Given the knack of certain posters for using low credibility sources, or apparently not noticing their sources don't claim what they say they do.

[JoeMemphis]

One of the reasons carmen, gounion, myself, and others on this board ask for a link is to verify what the poster posted/claimed. During my AF career, there was a mantra used throughout the AF and that went something like this; "If you didn't document it it didn't happen." This was important be it training folders ( I've got a story about that but that's for later), inventories, maintenance of equipment, etc... I was visiting another base to see how one of my former troops was doing and while there I ran into one of my troops when we were stationed in South Korea. She was a MSgt Sgt (E-7) and she had a young airman with her. She told me they were doing a inventory of medical equipment and then she had her airman tell me how they did the inventory and the airman replied "If I can't see it and touch it, it isn't there" and then the MSgt pointed to me and said "That's who I learned that from." The point is by seeing and touching the equipment they were verifying it was there and accounted for. The same goes for providing a link; it's for verifying something posted/claimed.

It’s a discussion board. Full of opinions on all sides. It isn’t a court of law. It isn’t an inventory or an audit. Believe what you like. Dismiss or ignore what you don’t. I don’t expect or ask people to post a link to support every personal opinion. I just accept that’s what you believe.

[Drak]

Facts and opinions/beliefs are not the same. Conservatives treat politics like a religion. Facts don’t matter.

[ProfX]

I don't know why people can't get this concept. There are two kinds of opinions. (IMHO).

One asserts your subjective preferences. This is not objectively provable. "Nitro Pepsi is the most awful tasting shit on the planet". OK. Well, you can't prove your palate. "The Fantastic Four reboot movie was the GOAT!" Well, I'd suggest there's something wrong with you, , but hey, people like what they like, I guess.

The other asserts something that is presumably rooted in objective fact. "Lower Slobovia is the worst place on Earth to live." Well. OK. What do you mean? Perhaps you mean it has one of the world's lowest poverty rates. Well, that is an objective, measurable fact. I mean, if you are claiming something that presumably is based in empirical or objective data, one needs to know where these facts are coming from - or not, as the case may be.

This is why people could, and should, request your sources for claims - assertions - etc. of that nature.

If you don't want to be asked for the basis of empirical claims, just state they are your belief, and not rooted in reality. I can accept that. The GQP has definitely left reality behind.

[JoeMemphis]

I don't know why people can't get this concept. There are two kinds of opinions. (IMHO).

One asserts your subjective preferences. This is not objectively provable. "Nitro Pepsi is the most awful tasting shit on the planet". OK. Well, you can't prove your palate. "The Fantastic Four reboot movie was the GOAT!" Well, I'd suggest there's something wrong with you, , but hey, people like what they like, I guess.

The other asserts something that is presumably rooted in objective fact. "Lower Slobovia is the worst place on Earth to live." Well. OK. What do you mean? Perhaps you mean it has one of the world's lowest poverty rates. Well, that is an objective, measurable fact. I mean, if you are claiming something that presumably is based in empirical or objective data, one needs to know where these facts are coming from - or not, as the case may be.

This is why people could, and should, request your sources for claims - assertions - etc. of that nature.

If you don't want to be asked for the basis of empirical claims, just state they are your belief, and not rooted in reality. I can accept that. The GQP has definitely left reality behind.

There are all kinds of opinions. Group them however you please. That’s also an opinion. I’ve read lots of opinions on this board that people claimed were facts. They weren’t and aren’t. You know, the border is closed, inflation is transitory, etc,etc,etc. Those were no more “real” than any of the others. Not rooted in reality.

[carmenjonze]

It’s a discussion board.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious!

And in this thread, we’re discussing the intellectual laziness and cowardly behavior of you three rightwing men.

Full of opinions on all sides.

…

Believe what you like. Dismiss or ignore what you don’t. I don’t expect or ask people to post a link to support every personal opinion. I just accept that’s what you believe.

You guys are so hung up on your precious “beliefs” and “opinions” being Holy Writ as soon as it comes out of your unmasked mouths, you STILL don’t understand the point of this thread, or how stupid you look when you can’t even back up your own statements with something other than “it’s my belief.”

It isn’t a court of law. It isn’t an inventory or an audit.

It’s not being treated like one, either.

This thread is simply a catalog of every time you dumb conservative trolls are asked to back up the trash you talk, but run away instead of doing what the normal people here do and simply provide a valid link or source.

I notice you still can’t come up with an intelligent reply to any of the challenges to you in this thread, either.

Too lazy? Too stupid? Some pathetic combination of both? Either way it’s a good demonstration on how easy it is for conservative demagogues to manipulate you using the same MO. Just say any old thing. They’re dumb enough to accept it without question or challenge. No wonder you’re a conservative.

[carmenjonze]

There are all kinds of opinions. Group them however you please. That’s also an opinion. I’ve read lots of opinions on this board that people claimed were facts. They weren’t and aren’t.

Name one.

Find it, and link it.

Just one.

It's so fitting that you'd say something like this in this thread, of all threads.

You know, the border is closed, inflation is transitory, etc,etc,etc. Those were no more “real” than any of the others. Not rooted in reality.

This is a really good demonstration of just how thick-headed conservatism makes a person.

What's sad is, defending this behavior of running away when asked to back up your uninformed assertions is a choice. You guys do not have to live like cowards, think like cowards, or talk like cowards.

[carmenjonze]

I don't know why people can't get this concept. There are two kinds of opinions. (IMHO).

One asserts your subjective preferences. This is not objectively provable. "Nitro Pepsi is the most awful tasting shit on the planet". OK. Well, you can't prove your palate. "The Fantastic Four reboot movie was the GOAT!" Well, I'd suggest there's something wrong with you, , but hey, people like what they like, I guess.

The other asserts something that is presumably rooted in objective fact. "Lower Slobovia is the worst place on Earth to live." Well. OK. What do you mean? Perhaps you mean it has one of the world's lowest poverty rates. Well, that is an objective, measurable fact. I mean, if you are claiming something that presumably is based in empirical or objective data, one needs to know where these facts are coming from - or not, as the case may be.

This is why people could, and should, request your sources for claims - assertions - etc. of that nature.

If you don't want to be asked for the basis of empirical claims, just state they are your belief, and not rooted in reality. I can accept that. The GQP has definitely left reality behind.

JoeMemphis is not being honest when he tosses out the "beliefs" and "opinions" canard.

These guys are dishonest with themselves, and consequently have such low regard for everyone else that as soon as they're challenged on even the slightest thing, they're not equipped for it, except to say, "but this is my precious opinion!!!"

[bradman]

i'm coming to think links can be highly over rated.

Yes, they are handy and when provided should be read and understood. After that i usually do what i'd do with, or, without the link. Pick out the key words in the post and research it myself. That way i receive the views of both right and left. It allows me to form my own opinion while learning more than i would have had i gotten into a link battle.

[carmenjonze]

i'm coming to think links can be highly over rated.

Sh#t links like the few that these entitled a-holes ever even provide are definitely overrated.

But backing up what one says is just the basics.

Nobody has to accept the trash that comes out of these people's keyboards just because they claim they're stating opinions, when in fact they're expecting folks like you to just accept what they say as fact, just because they said so.

Yes, they are handy and when provided should be read and understood. After that i usually do what i'd do with, or, without the link. Pick out the key words in the post and research it myself. That way i receive the views of both right and left. It allows me to for my own opinion while learning more than i would have had i gotten into a link battle.

The point is less about discussion or providing information.

It's about having the integrity and accountability to what you put in print without running away like gutless wonders when their baldfaced assertions are challenged. These rightwing trolls and dishonest miscreants don't have it becuase they've apparently never had to, and it shows.

They don't have to like this thread; nobody does.

[Number6]

It’s a discussion board. Full of opinions on all sides. It isn’t a court of law. It isn’t an inventory or an audit. Believe what you like. Dismiss or ignore what you don’t. I don’t expect or ask people to post a link to support every personal opinion. I just accept that’s what you believe.

I guess my post hit too close to home for you. Your post is screaming "You sank my Battleship!"

There's a difference between stating an opinion and stating something as a fact. The problem isn't with stating an opinion it's with stating something as a fact. glenn is the most guilty of this claiming something as a fact, not an opinion, and then refusing to back it up and it's part of his little game of his thinking he's owning us. Anyone posting a claim of fact should provide a link to support it. For example, if I claim Ford has announced a new electric car that will go 1,000 miles between charges then I should provide the source of where I got that claim from. So it's easy to see the difference of what needs to be backed up; opinions, no; claims yes.

[gounion]

There are all kinds of opinions. Group them however you please. That’s also an opinion. I’ve read lots of opinions on this board that people claimed were facts. They weren’t and aren’t. You know, the border is closed, inflation is transitory, etc,etc,etc. Those were no more “real” than any of the others. Not rooted in reality.

When’s the last time you’ve been to the border?
But I have to love you guys and how you’ve changed conservatism. From “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” to wanting fortress America.

[Drak]

I don't recall anyone here stating the border was closed. I recall people here stating there wasn't a crisis at the border created by Joe Biden, and there isn't. It's just manufactured fear based non sense and distractions that started the day Biden stepped into office. It's the same nonsense as "invading caravans" right before an election.

I also don't recall anyone here claiming inflation was transitory. I recall people here stating that inflation wasn't strictly an American problem caused by Joe Biden. Inflation is a world wide problem. As are oil prices. And these are facts, not opinions, that have been pointed out. It only takes a moment to quickly research this stuff, but as has been said, conservatives don't want facts. They want what they want to believe. And they're lazy. That's why Joe keeps talking about "opinion" and confuses opinion with fact. He knows he doesn't have facts and is doing his typical both sides bullshit that is is stock and trade.

If you come to a political message board and want to be credible, it's a good idea to back up with links. Not just spout off BS.

[JoeMemphis]

I guess my post hit too close to home for you. Your post is screaming "You sank my Battleship!"

There's a difference between stating an opinion and stating something as a fact. The problem isn't with stating an opinion it's with stating something as a fact. glenn is the most guilty of this claiming something as a fact, not an opinion, and then refusing to back it up and it's part of his little game of his thinking he's owning us. Anyone posting a claim of fact should provide a link to support it. For example, if I claim Ford has announced a new electric car that will go 1,000 miles between charges then I should provide the source of where I got that claim from. So it's easy to see the difference of what needs to be backed up; opinions, no; claims yes.

I don’t know that I have said my opinions were “facts”. In fact, I have repeated time and again, that what I post are my opinions. Others here seem to believe everything they write are “facts” when more often than not, it’s only opinion.

It’s a discussion board. Everyone here has opinions.

[ProfX]

There are all kinds of opinions. Group them however you please. That’s also an opinion.

Oh I understand. But Joe, you said you took Logic in college. I hope at some point the instructor got to the point that opinions can assert subjective preferences (not logically or empirically provable), or assert something rooted in objective, empirical fact (which can be proven or disproven, logically or empirically). You can choose to reject this, of course you're free to do so, but I don't think your Logic instructor would give you an A.

I’ve read lots of opinions on this board that people claimed were facts. They weren’t and aren’t. You know, the border is closed, inflation is transitory, etc,etc,etc. Those were no more “real” than any of the others. Not rooted in reality.

Both of those are semantic arguments. Semantics is also important to human discussion.

What does it mean for a border to be "closed"? Some would argue it is only closed if there is a wall extending its entire length (roughly 2000 miles for the U.S.-Mexico border). I have to confess that definition of "closed" for national borders would mean there are almost no countries on Earth with closed borders.

I would say ours meets the definition of a secure border for most countries, namely it has border patrol, checkpoints, and other systemic security (including cameras and drones) as well as some fencing and walls (some of the former built pre-Trump, going back to 2006). If in order to be "closed" it would have to prevent any undocumented person from crossing it, evah, well, I just happen to think that's an impossible dream.

As for inflation being transitory, well, that is not only true, but a tautology. BTW, I am not an economist, nor have I ventured a guess as to when our current inflation levels will fall, or end; however, I know of no economist who says U.S. inflation isn't finite in duration. They most definitely have got it wrong on their guesses on duration, though.

[JoeMemphis]

Oh I understand. But Joe, you said you took Logic in college. I hope at some point the instructor got to the point that opinions can assert subjective preferences (not logically or empirically provable), or assert something rooted in objective, empirical fact (which can be proven or disproven, logically or empirically). You can choose to reject this, of course you're free to do so, but I don't think your Logic instructor would give you an A.



Both of those are semantic arguments. Semantics is also important to human discussion.

What does it mean for a border to be "closed"? Some would argue it is only closed if there is a wall extending its entire length (roughly 2000 miles for the U.S.-Mexico border). I have to confess that definition of "closed" for national borders would mean there are almost no countries on Earth with closed borders.

I would say ours meets the definition of a secure border for most countries, namely it has border patrol, checkpoints, and other systemic security (including cameras and drones) as well as some fencing and walls (some of the former built pre-Trump, going back to 2006). If in order to be "closed" it would have to prevent any undocumented person from crossing it, evah, well, I just happen to think that's an impossible dream.

As for inflation being transitory, well, that is not only true, but a tautology. BTW, I am not an economist, nor have I ventured a guess as to when our current inflation levels will fall, or end; however, I know of no economist who says U.S. inflation isn't finite in duration. They most definitely have got it wrong on their guesses on duration, though.

So based on your point of reference, just about anything can be true or anything can be false. The border is open. The border is closed. Inflation is transitory. Inflation isn’t transitory. I didn’t have sex with that woman. It’s word games people play. We have a term for this kind of rhetoric in the South.

[ProfX]

In order to answer whether or not the border is open or closed, I do need a definition of those terms. I would say the statement that the border is completely open is a falsehood.

A totally open border would not have these. This is a border checkpoint. It stops people. Therefore, the border is not completely open.



As to your point on inflation, for your reading pleasure.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/ron-ins ... itory.html

Inflation has risen and fallen in the past, and I see no reason why this won't hold true in the present or future. "Transitory" means finite in duration and I do believe current inflation, like previous inflation is finite, though I do not even claim to know when it will start to fall.

It could be unfortunately later than the November elections. The economy doesn't seem to do what it does to fit our political calendar.

[JoeMemphis]

In order to answer whether or not the border is open or closed, I do need a definition of those terms. I would say the statement that the border is completely open is a falsehood.

A totally open border would not have these. This is a border checkpoint. It stops people. Therefore, the border is not completely open.



As to your point on inflation, for your reading pleasure.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/ron-ins ... itory.html

Inflation has risen and fallen in the past, and I see no reason why this won't hold true in the present or future. "Transitory" means finite in duration and I do believe current inflation, like previous inflation is finite, though I do not even claim to know when it will start to fall.

You know my bank has guards and has limited access but during the week and normal business hours despite those facts, it’s open. It’s a matter of opinion I suppose but I would never claim our border is closed. Far from it. Thousands of people cross the border everyday in places other than check points. If you want to call that closed or controlled, that’s up to you. I might have a different point of reference.

As for inflation and whether or not it’s transitory. I never made that claim. That’s a term used by this administration. IMO, they meant to convey that it was in their opinion short lived. They have since abandoned that term for the most part as the public IMO has a different perspective. Whose to blame. Covid, Putin. No doubt are factors. Government policy is also a factor IMO. Transitory or not, I doubt things are going to improve to any great degree by November and fair or unfair, the current administration will get blamed.

[ProfX]

If you want to call that closed or controlled, that’s up to you. I might have a different point of reference.

Then I have two questions for you.

1. How would you define a closed border?
2. And then, when has our border EVER met your definition? Under Trump? Bush? Ever?

If it's never met that definition, it is not a "Biden/current admin" problem. No?

IMO, they meant to convey that it was in their opinion short lived.

That is not the definition of the word "transitory". You asked ME (and others on this board) that question. The term "transitory" means

Webster's says: "Temporary, not permanent".

I think our current inflation is not permanent. I never said how long or short lived it would be. IMHO, the Biden admin is probably hoping the decline will start before November, but they may not get lucky.

[bradman]

Your link was no good. There was no reading pleasure there, only a paywall.

It did make me wonder what the hub bub was about.....?

https://qz.com/2098694/what-the-feds-po ... inflation/
If inflation isn’t “transitory,” how else should the Fed describe it?

The central banker’s job description demands a subtle sense of semantics: A stray word or misused phrase can move markets and rock economies. This holiday season, it appears, Jerome Powell, the chair of the US Federal Reserve, will spend his days musing over the meanings of the word “transitory.”

Through 2021, as the world has tried to recover from the covid-19 pandemic, Powell and other Fed officials have described rising prices as part of a pattern of transitory inflation. But on Nov. 30, Powell said he wants to retire the word. It wasn’t doing its job, he explained while testifying to the Senate Banking Committee. “It’s probably a good time to retire that word and explain more clearly what we mean.”

The debate surrounding inflation this year has hinged on “transitory” and its interpretations; those outside the wonky world of economics seem to infer an altogether different meaning to Powell’s. The tension shows just how difficult it is to communicate what’s happening to prices during a pandemic that has shifted consumer demand from services to goods and jammed global supply chains. But it also shows the limits of the English language to describe the complex, abstract phenomenon of inflation.

[ProfX]

I have never been paywalled from CNBC. I don't think it has a paywall.

I did, however, enjoy your link's mention of the problem of semantics. Particularly semantics within the context of professional jargon, like that of economics.

[bradman]

Hm...that's odd. the first time i hit on it i got the message to turn off my ad blocker, and i won't. They did let me in the second time round.

From your article....

The Fed should pause in September to reassess where the economy is headed now that the economy appears to be slowing and inflation appears, again, in my opinion, to be peaking. There may yet be a summer of discontent on Wall Street, but by autumn I suspect there will be no further fall.

Seems to me the author is brushing off the war in Ukraine a little bit to lightly.

[Number6]

I don’t know that I have said my opinions were “facts”. In fact, I have repeated time and again, that what I post are my opinions. Others here seem to believe everything they write are “facts” when more often than not, it’s only opinion.

We can tell when a person is expressing an opinion because the poster usually posts "I think" before making a statement or the verbiage makes it obvious it's an opinion. However, when a person makes a definitive statement without the "I think" or something similar then that statement is being portrayed as being accurate.

It’s a discussion board. Everyone here has opinions.

Opinions are one thing and statements of fact are another. If a person claims a statement to be factual and refuses to provide support then they are shutting down the discussion on this discussion board. There's a reason they refuse to provide a link and it's because they lying or they playing a game, like glenn does, which adds nothing to the discussion.