Jump to content

StraightJ

Members
  • Content Count

    15,336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

StraightJ last won the day on February 20

StraightJ had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,882 Excellent

2 Followers

About StraightJ

  • Rank
    Range Insider
  • Birthday 12/12/1979

Converted

  • How long have you been a Buffalo fan?
    Longer than I care to admit right now

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You sir, are correct. In the past I've said similar when someone made these arguments. Jordan Phillips was BANNED by HIS TEAM, and yet apparently has been absolutely fine here....and even outperformed expecations.
  2. by Tyler Durden Thu, 02/20/2020 - 04:22 TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint The Washington Post is taking heat over a Tuesday op-ed authored by Marquette University political science professor Julia Azari, titled "It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president." Azari argues that the Democratic party's primary process is overly-complicated and convoluted, and the process of choosing the nominee should instead be placed in the hands of politicians instead. After outrage ensued, the Post changed the headline to the far less inflammatory "It's time to switch to preference primaries." 2,219 people are talking about this The article reads: Instead of primaries in which caucuses are held to pick primary delegates, Azari suggests that the parties should use "preference primaries" which would "allow voters to rank their choices among candidates, as well as to register opinions about their issue priorities." This would allow the 'elites' to choose a nominee based on what the voters want - a strategy Azari admitted is "labor-intensive and a little risky," according to Breitbart. See Greg's other Tweets 27 people are talking about this 646 people are talking about this https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wapo-claims-elites-should-run-elections-quietly-edits-article-after-public-outrage-ensues
  3. Some of us were watching the debate and usiog the Shoutbox like we do during games. Hip was in his thread, kind oif like a game thread(which I agree with Meat, might be cool to resume doing). I went in and invited Hip out to the Shoutbox, but had no idea he was a fan of Bloomberg. FRAWK was the only person I'd seen supporting him as his guy, so I didn't realize it bugged Hip when I was saying Sanders body slammed him, I wasn't trying to goad him(in a LARGE dose of irony, in the losers section, CNN used different words for what each candidate did to Bloomberg. Their word for what Sanders did to him? I highlighted it down below, the same word I used that triggered Hip after he kept telling me it wasnt as big of deal as I thought!!! :)). The stuff I called during the debate is listed below(and then some) .. . . . Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large Updated 4:55 AM ET, Thu February 20, 2020 (CNN)The top six candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination gathered on a debate stage Wednesday night, just days before the critical Nevada caucuses. The focus was on former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made his first appearance in this, the ninth debate of the Democratic race. And he was shaakkkkkky. My winners and losers from the night that was are below. WINNERS * Elizabeth Warren: Holy moly -- what a debate for the Massachusetts senator. From the jump, Warren seemed to understand that she desperately needed a spark in the race. And she came out fighting -- mostly against Bloomberg. "I'd like to talk about who we're running against," Warren said moments into the debate. "A billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians, and no I'm not talking about Donald Trump, I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg." But that wasn't even the most savage hit Warren scored on Bloomberg! That came later, when she absolutely destroyed his equivocation on whether he would release women who had worked for his company from non-disclosure agreements they had signed. It was a takedown -- aided by Bloomberg's inability to mitigate the damage -- that you rarely see at this level of politics. If debates matter, Warren should overperform her current polls in Nevada. * Bernie Sanders: The ganging-up on Bloomberg was just fine for the Sanders, who, in case you forgot, is the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination. With all of the attention -- and opposition research -- being used to tear Bloomberg apart, the Vermont democratic socialist largely got a pass. On his major weakness at the moment -- his walking back of a previous pledge to release his full medical records -- Sanders took a few hits, but benefited from Pete Buttigieg's decision not to push the issue of his personal health but rather to pivot to Sanders' health care plan. Sanders, as he usually does in debates, played his greatest hits (millionaires and billionaires, "Medicare for All," etc.) that have put him atop the Democratic field. * Pete Buttigieg/Joe Biden: Warren giving Bloomberg the emperor-has-no-clothes treatment will slow the former New York City mayor's attempt to seize control of the pragmatic centrist lane. That's good news for both Buttigieg and Biden, who want/need to be that candidate. Biden, a hugely mediocre debater, turned in one of his more solid performances on Wednesday night but that was due, in no small part, to the fact that everyone else on the stage ignored him. Buttigieg is, without question, the most naturally gifted debater in the Democratic field, meaning he is simply not going to turn in a clunker. He was steady if not spectacular in this debate. And he spent lots of time going at Sanders, a clear effort to send a signal to voters that he is the most credible alternative to the Vermont senator. * Contested convention: Asked directly whether they believed that the candidate with the most delegates at the end of the process should be the party's nominee even if that person didn't win a majority of delegates during the primary votes, everyone but Sanders said they disagreed with that idea. (Sanders is the candidate most likely to wind up with the most delegates -- and still short of a majority). Brokered convention, here we come! (Maybe?) LOSERS * Michael Bloomberg: The first hour of the debate was an absolute and total disaster for the former mayor. He looked lost at times -- and those were the best times for him! Warren dunked on him repeatedly. Sanders slammed him. Biden bashed him. It was like watching a pro wrestling match where everyone decided to gang up on a single wrestler in the ring -- and that wrestler was totally and completely caught off-guard. Bloomberg is still very, very rich -- and will continue to spend his money on the race. So he's not going away. But it's hard to see how the momentum Bloomberg had built through his heavy ad spending wasn't slowed considerably by a performance that slid waaaaay under what was a very low bar of expectations. * Amy Klobuchar: The Minnesota senator has been one of the best debaters in the race to date. Not on Wednesday night. Klobuchar's authenticity has been at the center of her rise of late but it all seemed too hokey and too forced this time around. Klobuchar had to know she was going to get a question about why she couldn't remember the name of the Mexican President, but she still had to look down at her notes to get the name right! And her follow-up bit of trivia about the number of people in the Israeli parliament fell totally flat too. Just not her night. * Jon Ralston: Full disclosure -- the editor of the Nevada Independent is a friend. But he is also the preeminent journalist in Nevada, and has been for decades. Given all of that, he needed a larger role as a moderator in this debate. Why have him on stage if he is largely sidelined and not given the chance to ask the candidates about issues that he knows Nevada voters actually care about? https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/who-won-democratic-debate/index.html
  4. VIRAL 17:45 GMT 20.02.2020Get short URL 135 A number of past videos of Democratic presidential contender Michael Bloomberg sharing his warm feelings towards Donald Trump are currently making the rounds on social media, and this could not go unnoticed by the US president. “This is the REAL Mini Mike”, Donald Trump exclaimed, while sharing a 2011 video of ex-New York City Michael Bloomberg silently agreeing with the fact that he had often admitted to being “a fan of Donald Trump”. The US president, who had just been slamming the Democratic party presidential contender on his Twitter account a few hours ago, for allegedly “buying” the Democratic nomination, now thanked him for such a high appraisal – even though the interview dated way before his position in the White House. Unsurprisingly, reactions followed. Netizens were eager to remind Trump that Michael Bloomberg, whose campaign team called the US president “a pathological liar” just a couple of week ago, should not be much trusted with his words. Some also cited the alleged similarity between the two politicians. The video was just one of several old clips featuring then-mayor Bloomberg expressing his sympathy toward the owner of Trump Organisation in the past interviews and talks that have been recently unearthed by the media. In one of the videos, the Democratic presidential contender went as far as to declare his “love” for Donald Trump. Not clear though, whether this feeling is a mutual one for the US president. https://sputniknews.com/viral/202002201078361402-mini-mike-is-my-fan-donald-trump-ecstatic-as-bloomberg-caught-praising-him-in-old-interviews/
  5. VIRAL 17:45 GMT 20.02.2020Get short URL 135 A number of past videos of Democratic presidential contender Michael Bloomberg sharing his warm feelings towards Donald Trump are currently making the rounds on social media, and this could not go unnoticed by the US president. “This is the REAL Mini Mike”, Donald Trump exclaimed, while sharing a 2011 video of ex-New York City Michael Bloomberg silently agreeing with the fact that he had often admitted to being “a fan of Donald Trump”. The US president, who had just been slamming the Democratic party presidential contender on his Twitter account a few hours ago, for allegedly “buying” the Democratic nomination, now thanked him for such a high appraisal – even though the interview dated way before his position in the White House. Unsurprisingly, reactions followed. Netizens were eager to remind Trump that Michael Bloomberg, whose campaign team called the US president “a pathological liar” just a couple of week ago, should not be much trusted with his words. Some also cited the alleged similarity between the two politicians. The video was just one of several old clips featuring then-mayor Bloomberg expressing his sympathy toward the owner of Trump Organisation in the past interviews and talks that have been recently unearthed by the media. In one of the videos, the Democratic presidential contender went as far as to declare his “love” for Donald Trump. Not clear though, whether this feeling is a mutual one for the US president. https://sputniknews.com/viral/202002201078361402-mini-mike-is-my-fan-donald-trump-ecstatic-as-bloomberg-caught-praising-him-in-old-interviews/
  6. I'm not sure what the exact age should be, but I seem to remmeber that the brain is still developing at 18....though folkls can kill and be killed in wars for "their" country at that age, although not buy beer. I'd have to put more thought into it. Why did you choose 25? I think there is a much bigger issue here than at what age they can get it, tough. This boy is ALREADY spending his youth as a girl, and even your law of being 25 is in place, and he changes his mind at maybe 23 and is saved, he's lost a good chunk of his youth(and a chunk of legal adulthood even) living as a member of the gender he won't spending the rest of his life as. I don't think most of us realize that could cause a lot of problems. The ROOT cause of this is something that hasn;t been mentioned yet. Do you suppose some physical disease could be causing young boys to want this when that was not the case until relatively recently?
  7. I guess it would be easier to say it as the early practicers of it. Being you don't believe in G*d, I am also guessing you don't believe in a historical Jesus? Would this also mean you don't beliece in a historical Peter? Regardless, it wasn't until Contstantine seeing the cross in the sky and converting and then forcing everyone in his empiire to, that persecution and violence became tools of recuitment.....unlike say, Islam.
  8. I just replied to one of the TDS members with a link of your Mediium article again, after @Meathead was going on about how Republicans ignore when people break the law(I think it was in the thread about TDS folks were celebrating the crash icrash and possible death of the fella in the Daytona 500. Maybe you can see if he "ignores" these things. Just to be clear, the portion of the article I printed mentioned the meeting was unlawful, and I wanted to make sure that is correct to possible male an illustration of hypocrisy to Meat. Would I be correct in doing so?
  9. Ugh, thanks Captain Bringdown! Seriously though, thanks. I'd rather know now and be more prrepared for it than I would have been otherwise.
  10. CNN(and a very large nuimnber of others) seem to have an extremely different view on what happened during last night's debate than you...they did agree she really had to do something, but think it she did a very fine job at it(as did everyone who went after Bloomberg. She may have been the best, but others did well, especiialy Bernie). I'm proud to say my view was what it was before I read anything from them, and you already saw it during and shoryly after the debate. :) I'll post the CNN article soon, and others. It seems to be almost a "consensus". ;)
  11. Maybe you can pass that example on to Hip and others about "consensus" science, and how not so long ago it was quite wrong about something as important as what we put in our bodies(actually it still is in a number of ways in that regard...like why does the FDA not ban the extremely unhealthy food coloring that are used, when plenty of perfectly safe ones exist?). Maybe you can also explain the concept of not being funded unles you tow the ocmpany line. I also found some 2009 news stories about the emails from a Brtiish Univserity's emails that were posted that at least made it sound like they were fudging the research, algthough the MSM did their best to spin it otherwise, as well as call it a hack when it could have also been a whistle blower. I'm debating whether I should post it or not. At this very moment, this issue isn't as big to me as some others.
  12. Do you think they're the only ones who ignore criminal behavior? I'm not tlalking about you personally, but if we wanted to list all of the unconnstitutional things past Presidents diid, we'd be here quite awhile, and the TDS folks weren't flaming the last administration(for example) when they did them. Of course most of the MSM is quite liberal, so it would be diminishg the wrong said adminstration committed(after ignoring it completely, unless someone else brings it up), similar to how Fox might be with issues dealing with Republics. And about ignoring criminal behavior, that's nothing compared to the "TDS" thread I recently posted which contained a slew of articles about crimes committed bu anti-Trump people that came in in about a 2 or 3 day time span. Most folks would think that ignoring criminal behavior isn't quite as bad as doing criminal behavior. Of course that thread might have been 5 or so days ago, maybe I can bump it for you. Truth be told, the average American is ignoring much of this, that is including Trump haters. Do you really picture the majority of inner city folks under a certain age gathered around the TV waching CNN all day like TDSers? People tend to use a lot of projection when developing these perceptions. Meat, I don't expect you to be objective about this, but I think what I just wrote, abeit ir concise by my standards, said all one needs to really understand this matter if they really wanted to. I highly recommend you reas Sack's article writtern by a 20 year member of the Democratic party about finding common ground and being less divisive. I'm not suggesting you need to do anything, but really think it would be helpful. Ive never endorsed Trump, and neither did she, but you're view sounds extremely narrow. I know people who still support Trump. and are nothing like the people you describe as typical Trumo voters. I suspect you watch tv, and have been exposed to a decent amount of media programming, which can shad a persons view of reality. I dont want to argue mean, I'm trying to be part of thee solution like this Democratic young woman. I went and found Sack;'s artcle, I suppose you could always skim it to see if you might like it. It is NOT typical Sack stuff(I felt the need to put that because I understant how mental filters and prejudice work). Glad to have you back, wish it were more for Bills stuff thoigh. :)
  13. If that were the case. I wouldn't have bothered top post this. If youi skim through the highlighted parts, you will note they are using very sophisticated techniques, of interroagation and reprogramming the women(the I did highlight one whole section of time things went very wrong...a portion of the women leave quite upset, although most seem to be successully reprogrammed.). Like I said to fanback, that's what the media(and I don't mean just the news, entertainment as well) is doing in an ongoing basis to everyone, just much more subtly. You may have noticed that many so called conservatives now have views that would have seemed somewhat liberal 2 or 3 decades ago.....such as wien they jokingly use the Seinfeld lone "not that ther's anything wrong with that".(There's probably better examples, but you get the idea).
  14. lol that would be humous! Actually, I highlighted all the parts worth reading. One of them said they already gave up on all men, who they think will be too difficult to reach. (What they did not say, was the reason why: Becaise men use use more of the logical side of their brains, whereas women use more of the emotional side). They also said they weren't going to try their brainwashing on Trump voters, likely for the same reason. ;) This is a smaller scale but more intense version of how the esatblishment media is programming the minds of folks, and really something helpful to be aware of. This isn't the first time I've heard about the microanalyzing of words and actions to try to find what they label "very subtle racism". It's rather insidious.
×
×
  • Create New...