Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 184: Torn NATO

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Whens the last time Seph has posted more than like, twice, in the entirety of a politics topic?

he posted 11 times in topic 182
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Whens the last time Seph has posted more than like, twice, in the entirety of a politics topic?

he posted 11 times in topic 182

You need help dude
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Whens the last time Seph has posted more than like, twice, in the entirety of a politics topic?

he posted 11 times in topic 182

How many times in 183 and this one?

And then how many times has red sox posted?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

How many times in 183 and this one?

And then how many times has red sox posted?

lol, this is literally the argument you guys are resorting to now? "sephy doesn't taint EVERY topic with his bullshit trolling and insults, so there's nothing wrong with people engaging him!"

contrary to what sephy may believe i don't have a spreadsheet detailing the post counts of sephy and red sox in this topic series, but i do know that red sox doesn't post frequently in every single topic either. i let that "lasa/red sox containment" topic purge because at that point red sox was hardly posting - either in that topic or in this topic.
---

You people seriously act like 5 year olds. Anyone can talk to whoever the fuck they want. If you have a problem with it, that is your issue. Not theirs.

Like Jesus christ grow the fuck up alrdy. You spend how many topics complaining about this shit over and over.
---

---

board
eight
politics

Mr Lasastryke posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

How many times in 183 and this one?

And then how many times has red sox posted?

lol, this is literally the argument you guys are resorting to now? "sephy doesn't taint EVERY topic with his bullshit trolling and insults, so there's nothing wrong with people engaging him!"

contrary to what sephy may believe i don't have a spreadsheet detailing the post counts of sephy and red sox in this topic series, but i do know that red sox doesn't post frequently in every single topic either. i let that "lasa/red sox containment" topic purge because at that point red sox was hardly posting - either in that topic or in this topic.

This was my point from the beginning. If you're going to whine and cry and talk shit because people respond to Sephy, when he barely even posts, then you can't whine and cry and talk shit when people complain about you replying to red sox, because you do it literally every topic

Either way, you're a child. This "I won't be a decent poster because nobody will give me anything!" is stupid and I don't know why I didn't ignore you a long ass time ago

Good riddance.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

If you're going to whine and cry and talk shit because people respond to Sephy, when he barely even posts, then you can't whine and cry and talk shit when people complain about you replying to red sox, because you do it literally every topic

what the fuck is this shit? did you even read my post?

1) no, he doesn't always "barely even post." i just pointed out that he posted a substantial amount two topics ago.
2) i just told you that several topics ago red sox was barely posting, if at all. so no, i don't reply to him "literally ever topic." pretty hard for me to reply when there's nothing to reply to.

This "I won't be a decent poster because nobody will give me anything!" is stupid

yeah, i have to be a decent poster while other regulars can carry on being unreasonable assholes. great deal.
---

You're calling 11 posts in a topic a significant amount? Red Sox posted that many times on page 4, and there were more responses to him than Seph ever gets. Personally I don't mind if people post at non-Ulti users, but your argument is pretty thin.
---

I am glad people have me on ignore so I can sit here and repeat common sense (apparently sagely advice for this crowd) over and over.

Talk to who you want to Lasa. Who the fuck cares what people think. They are the idiots thinking they can tell you who to talk to.

And, if you bitch about them talking to people, you are being an issue also when you do it.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

You're calling 11 posts in a topic a significant amount?

i think so, especially because the posts were spread out through the entirety of the topic. i could see the argument if he just splurged 11 posts in a row but that's not what happened.

it's a lower amount of posts than the amount of red sox posts in this topic, sure. but it's not the "super rare sephy appearance" my opponents are making it out to be, either. it's definitely enough posts for him to be a notable presence in the topic, especially because in addition to the 11 posts, a lot of people were quoting his posts as well.
---

The difference is Seph is sometimes a notable presence in the topic, whereas Red Sox dominates the topic for extended periods of time. Like, you do you and all, but don't act like there's not a significant difference between the impacts the two have on the topic.
---

---

Corrik posted...

And, if you bitch about them talking to people, you are being an issue also when you do it.

in general i agree with your stance in this. i only brought up sephy because people were complaining about my interactions with red sox. i'm always incredibly annoyed when people engage sephy but i never bring it up - you'll never see me go "WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL RESPONDING TO HIM DO YOU STILL NOT REALIZE HE'S JUST A TROLL GEEZ." but because people wanted me to stop replying to red sox, i went "i'll do it, but with a caveat: since my enjoyment of these topics would decrease a lot if i'm not able to argue with him, i want something in return, namely no more responses to sephy."*

people could have just ended this by saying "deal" but they didn't do that (because it's so incredibly important to respond to posts like "i love how we have a conservative majority now i'm going to be even richer smiley face"). instead they threw a bunch of insults at me and now half the regulars have me on ignore. oh well.

* i'll add that xic's request was actually reasonable, as he doesn't engage sephy (not that i can remember, at least). but he frequently acts like an asshole to me (as can be seen in this topic). lol @ the idea of me doing anything for him.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Like, you do you and all, but don't act like there's not a significant difference between the impacts the two have on the topic.

sure, there is a difference.

i've been over this last time everyone got mad at me for replying to red sox. short version: i don't agree at all with the people saying that the quantity is the most important thing. i'll take a lot of red sox posts with him playing devil's advocate over not as many sephy posts with him making this topic toxic as fuck.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

performance review

I loled
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

since my enjoyment of these topics would decrease a lot if i'm not able to argue with him,

What is enjoyable to you about arguing with a brick wall.

You always bite he always ignores any actual points you make to continue to disingenuously say shit until everyone gets so annoyed with you both that the topic stops and becomes about telling the two of you to shut the fuck up because no one else cares.
---

Eddv posted...

What is enjoyable to you about arguing with a brick wall.

he can be annoying but i don't think he's that bad. at least he's polite and he often addresses the points i make.

i'll take red sox in a heartbeat over everyone arguing with me about red sox, at least in the context of this argument. take tony's "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SEPHY NEVER POSTS MORE OFTEN THAN TWICE A TOPIC" post, for instance. that post was 1) rude and 2) incorrect. way worse than the average red sox post.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Whens the last time Seph has posted more than like, twice, in the entirety of a politics topic?

he posted 11 times in topic 182

How many of these 11 posts were "toxic?"
---

redrocket posted...

How many of these 11 posts were "toxic?"

i'm not going to wade through a bunch of old sephy posts just to prove to you that he sucks in these topics.

if you think he's not a bothersome presence here, fine. i disagree.
---

I still dont understand what is so hard about just scrolling past posts you dont want to read.

And it feels like we end up devolving into this kind of discussion once every other topic or so.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Eddv posted...

What is enjoyable to you about arguing with a brick wall.

he can be annoying but i don't think he's that bad. at least he's polite and he often addresses the points i make.

i'll take red sox in a heartbeat over everyone arguing with me about red sox, at least in the context of this argument. take tony's "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SEPHY NEVER POSTS MORE OFTEN THAN TWICE A TOPIC" post, for instance. that post was 1) rude and 2) incorrect. way worse than the average red sox post.

I said, more than like, 2, because Sephs recent posts have been so mild as to be forgettable (btw you realize 11 posts is almost 1/50th of the posts right?), and you were making an unreasonably childish respond to what started as a simple request.

Also, Im pretty sure in your discussion with Red Sox in THIS topic, you said something similar to what the fuck are you talking about or that makes no fucking sense, so pot, kettle, bruh.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I still dont understand what is so hard about just scrolling past posts you dont want to read.

And it feels like we end up devolving into this kind of discussion once every other topic or so.

Kind of annoying to post about an important news story and have no one see it because it's in the middle of a 100 post argument
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What exactly is the stated purpose of the upcoming Putin visit?

Just a bi-annual check in?

Really Putin should have invited him to the World Cup final today.....and let Trump hand the trophy to the winning team!
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I still dont understand what is so hard about just scrolling past posts you dont want to read.

And it feels like we end up devolving into this kind of discussion once every other topic or so.

Kind of annoying to post about an important news story and have no one see it because it's in the middle of a 100 post argument

If it is important, I highly doubt you are the only person to know about it. And this important news will be forgotten about and never known without your singular post. Which trust me, people still see.
---

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I still dont understand what is so hard about just scrolling past posts you dont want to read.

And it feels like we end up devolving into this kind of discussion once every other topic or so.

Kind of annoying to post about an important news story and have no one see it because it's in the middle of a 100 post argument

If it is important, I highly doubt you are the only person to know about it. And this important news will be forgotten about and never known without your singular post. Which trust me, people still see.

Not untrue, but also sometimes you want to talk about an ongoing news story instead of arguing why Trump won for the 500th time, you know?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I still dont understand what is so hard about just scrolling past posts you dont want to read.

And it feels like we end up devolving into this kind of discussion once every other topic or so.

Kind of annoying to post about an important news story and have no one see it because it's in the middle of a 100 post argument

If it is important, I highly doubt you are the only person to know about it. And this important news will be forgotten about and never known without your singular post. Which trust me, people still see.

Not untrue, but also sometimes you want to talk about an ongoing news story instead of arguing why Trump won for the 500th time, you know?

Might I suggest my topic? :)
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

and you were making an unreasonably childish respond to what started as a simple request.

not sure what's "unreasonably childish" about asking for something in return when people demand that i make a sacrifice.

Also, Im pretty sure in your discussion with Red Sox in THIS topic, you said something similar to what the fuck are you talking about or that makes no fucking sense, so pot, kettle, bruh.

i'm not saying i'm never rude or that all of my posts are perfect. i was responding to ed, who went "HOW CAN YOU ENJOY ARGUING WITH RED SOX." i responded with "well, i'll take the average red sox post over a post that's wrong, rude and adds 0% value to the topic." it wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you, for the record. just named a random example of a post in this topic i find to be worse than the average red sox post - i could have named tons of other examples as well.
---

Are we done?

Can we be done?

You people are making Chris' suggestion seem viable and literally Ulti posts in his topic.
---

So back to politics, a poll using the same methodology that got the last UK election correct has the Tories dropping, giving Labour a 5% lead. Hurrah!

It turns out when you promise unicorns then admit you can't deliver unicorns and your party falls into chaos people don't like it.
---

Basically everyone here seems to agree that for the sake of good discussion in good faith, certain people shouldn't be responded to, they just disagree on who. Main 2 right now being red sox and Seph but previously Ulti and Corrik have been under discussion too

So how about you all compromise and stop completely! To all of them! Then we don't have this every couple of topics and we don't have any "bad discussion"
---

LapisLazuli posted...

LinkMarioSamus posted...

In her book "What Happened", Hillary mentions social justice, feminism, and Black Lives Matter in favorable contexts.

As any decent human being would.

I actually agree, but people throw those terms around in a negative context so often.

She also clarified in her book that she sees the goal of feminism as equality and not female superiority. Ditto for BLM. Again, I agree but she's clearly not aware of the extreme measures of both groups which has led them to be mired in controversy.

And about Trump, how on earth did people not see bad news in capital letters written all over him at first? America does not have a good track record for Presidents without prior political experience. America does not have a good track record for Presidents coming from business backgrounds. And right-wing Presidents have had a much worse record when it comes to administrations being mired in controversy within the past fifty or so years. So...why was there even massive support for Trump in the first place? Probably because, anti-leftist sentiment. Which I don't understand why there is so much of it.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

Basically everyone here seems to agree that for the sake of good discussion in good faith, certain people shouldn't be responded to, they just disagree on who. Main 2 right now being red sox and Seph but previously Ulti and Corrik have been under discussion too

So how about you all compromise and stop completely! To all of them! Then we don't have this every couple of topics and we don't have any "bad discussion"

Rehashed argument #193837192847.

I do not know how you guys go outside where like 45% of voting Americans have opposite views than you.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

So back to politics, a poll using the same methodology that got the last UK election correct has the Tories dropping, giving Labour a 5% lead. Hurrah!

It turns out when you promise unicorns then admit you can't deliver unicorns and your party falls into chaos people don't like it.

Pity there won't be an election for a while yet. She isn't going to call another snap you would think
---

You have to think that bare minimum there's gonna be leadership challenge/attempted vote of no confidence right?
---

Probably, but it might wait until April. We leave the EU on the 30th of March and causing chaos within our government before then would weaken our negotiating position with the EU even further.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

Probably, but it might wait until April. We leave the EU on the 30th of March and causing chaos within our government before then would weaken our negotiating position with the EU even further.

Well sure, but the entire reason Boris resigned was over the direction of Brexit, I sort of figure the accompanying leadership challengr to come sooner rather than later unless he realizes its hopeless
---

It's a bad time for him to take over rn. I think he'd rather give May enough rope to hang herself with first
---

Then, forgive me if I am asking something really obvious, why did he bother resigning at all?

Just to register his displeasure?
---

Probably because he can make it look like a principled stand over Brexit, rather than a blatant power grab, to give himself credibility later?
---

I think XIII is bang on. The challenge will come later when he can say "oh I would have done it differently". If he's smart at least. Anybody who takes over now will run into the exact same problems because unicorns don't exist and a "good" brexit deal is a unicorn. Additionally May will likely win any challenge because everybody else in the running is even more hated (except MAYBE Sajid Javid, but he would be the continuity choice anyway).

Although if there are mass (and by mass I mean like... 5) MP resignations that could trigger an election I think, but that's unlikely.
---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-interview-cbs-news-european-union-is-a-foe-ahead-of-putin-meeting-in-helsinki-jeff-glor/

JEFF GLOR: Who is your biggest competitor? Your biggest foe globally right now?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn't think of the European Union but they're a foe. Russia is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn't mean they are bad. It doesn't mean anything. It means that they are competitive. They want to do well and we want to do well. And we're starting to do well. You see what's going on we have best unemployment numbers probably that we've ever had. Black unemployment is the lowest level in history. Hispanic unemployment the lowest level in history, Jeff. Women unemployment lowest in 66 years. Our numbers are great. Our GDP numbers are far greater than what they thought.

(Bolded to emphasize that those were literally the first words out of his mouth in response to the question)
---

plus contrasting with how he lists Russia, "in certain aspects" without going into any detail
---

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1018552831580823555?s=21

How does he not drive the people who have to constantly listen to his speech patterns insane?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1018552831580823555?s=21

How does he not drive the people who have to constantly listen to his speech patterns insane?

You know I know, but a lot of people dont know that
---

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/15/elon-musk-spars-with-thai-soccer-team-rescuer-in-blistering-tirade.html

Musk is so damn weird.
---

Musk is going to become a supervillain one day.
---

I mean, isnt he kind of already there?
---

He is basically Hank Scorpio already
---