Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Val Keating]

So who is AOC exactly?

She’s a cat amongst the pidgins

 

[giantroo]

 

[Val Keating]

 

[Groin guru]

Okay, so their path is not the same then. AOC has no background in conservative politics. Got there in the end.

Thanks for proving my point. I said if you change a few words you have AOC. I proved it. They are the same but with different viewpoints.

You'd be more than happy to breakdown Candice Owens but you wouldn't dare do the same to AOC. At least try to hide the bias a little better. Be consistent across the board.

 

[Val Keating]

This shit campaigner will never dare come to Brunswick or Coburg.

 

[Forever North]

Cannot fathom how and why complete trash like Anning get elected into parliament. Just an uneducated, uncultured low life appealing to society's fringes. He's embarrassing the country. What sort of lowlife are you wanting to make political mileage out of an evil act?

 

[The Other Dean]

Thanks for proving my point. I said if you change a few words you have AOC. I proved it. They are the same but with different viewpoints.

You'd be more than happy to breakdown Candice Owens but you wouldn't dare do the same to AOC. At least try to hide the bias a little better. Be consistent across the board.

One did an ideological 180 (Owens), the other did not (AOC).

Ergot, dissimilar path. It's pretty straight forward, and integral to my original point.

 

[Groin guru]

She’s a cat amongst the pidgins

You might want to look at both sides of AOC...

 

[Devington]

Cannot fathom how and why complete trash like Anning get elected into parliament. Just an uneducated, uncultured low life appealing to society's fringes. He's embarrassing the country. What sort of lowlife are you wanting to make political mileage out of an evil act?

He got in due to an utterly bizarre chain of events. One Nation won enough votes in Queensland to get 2 senators (Bizarre enough in itself, if not for how obviously sick of the major parties people are). This happened during the dual citizenship crisis. There were 3 people on the ballot for One Nation. One of them was found to be a dual citizen and was thus ineligible. 3rd place and defacto Senator, with a whopping 19 votes.... Anning.

 

[Groin guru]

One did a ideological 180 (Owens), the other did not (AOC).

Ergot, dissimilar path. It's pretty straight forward, and integral to my original point.

No. That was step 2. You listed 4. You're just trying to circle out of it. There is a reason why you are more than willing to breakdown certain people, and less inclined to even go near others. You're pulling matrix like moves to get yourself out of this. I assume because you don't want to upset those that look up to your point of view (sopwiths for example).

Zero consistency. So called 'voice of reason' but you just highlighted your inconsistency. It's okay...keep sticking to 'step 2' and ignoring the rest though

 

[Forever North]

He got in due to an utterly bizarre chain of events. One Nation won enough votes in Queensland to get 2 senators (Bizarre enough in itself, if not for how obviously sick of the major parties people are). This happened during the dual citizenship crisis. There were 3 people on the ballot for One Nation. One of them was found to be a dual citizen and was thus ineligible. 3rd place and defacto Senator, with a whopping 19 votes.... Anning.

Shits me how these scumbags are on the taxpayer payroll... And you can be sure they are milking every single dollar and perk they can get their grubby hands on.

 

[The Other Dean]

No. That was step 2. You listed 4. You're just trying to circle out of it. There is a reason why you are more than willing to breakdown certain people, and less inclined to even go near others. You're pulling matrix like moves to get yourself out of this. I assume because you don't want to upset those that look up to your point of view (sopwiths for example).

Zero consistency. So called 'voice of reason' but you just highlighted your inconsistency. It's okay...keep sticking to 'step 2' and ignoring the rest though

Haha. Strange post. You seem aggrieved.

Yes, I listed 4 Steps. If their first 2 steps are not the same, they have clearly followed a different path into the political sphere.

It's really not that complicated.

(Hint - the first 2 Steps are important to my original point.)

 

[Val Keating]

You might want to look at both sides of AOC...

Show me

 

[Groin guru]

Haha. Strange post. You seem aggrieved.

Yes, I listed 4 Steps. If their first 2 steps are not the same, they have clearly followed a different path into the political sphere.

It's really not that complicated.

(Hint - the first 2 Steps are important to my original point.)

Not aggrieved at all. More amused at seeing you do whatever you can to move on from my point and just highlighting the hypocrisy. Predictable.

Keep ignoring my original point of they are basically the same. You know what I mean by that - same young upstart with a bit of a push, same gender, social media backing. I even change the words for you to prove my point.

Again, wilfully ignorant or saving face in front of those you admire that in turn like her. You're not ignorant.

 

[Groin guru]

Show me

We aren't doing this dance again. Remember I was the one that was present to you discovering US politics a few months ago. You're unwilling to look at both sides and always bring it back to Trump. Not worth my time when you can google any number of people criticising her 'green new deal' or high school level understanding of economics. It's all there.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

We aren't doing this dance again. Remember I was the one that was present to you discovering US politics a few months ago. You're unwilling to look at both sides and always bring it back to Trump. Not worth my time when you can google any number of people criticising her 'green new deal' or high school level understanding of economics. It's all there.

Haha, I love when you get your smartest man in the room head on. This is your standard response when challenged.

 

[The Other Dean]

Not aggrieved at all.

Sorry, I obviously misinterpreted the repeated digs at my character.

More amused at seeing you do whatever you can to move on from my point and just highlighting the hypocrisy. Predictable.

Keep ignoring my original point of they are basically the same. You know what I mean by that - same young upstart with a bit of a push, same gender, social media backing. I even change the words for you to prove my point.

Again, wilfully ignorant or saving face in front of those you admire that in turn like her. You're not ignorant.

If you feel they are one and the same (but just operating on different sides of the political fence), that's fine. I understand your point, as I have done all along. I don't necessarily agree with what you're contending, but that's fine, too.

However, once again, I'll simply try to reiterate the importance of the first 2 Steps, and how the 'backflip' or '180' element is absolutely integral to my original point. Because it speaks of motivation. If that nuance is lost on you through some failure on my part to make my point understood, then I apologise.

 

[Groin guru]

Haha, I love when you get your smartest man in the room head on. This is your standard response when challenged.

Any other examples?

Except I've had this discussion with Val before. It literally goes nowhere.

 

[Groin guru]

If you feel they are one and the same (but just operating on different sides of the political fence), that's fine. I understand your point, as I have done all along. I don't necessarily agree with what you're contending, but that's fine, too.

However, once again, I'll simply try to reiterate the importance of the first 2 Steps, and how the 'backflip' or '180' element, is absolutely integral to my original point. Because it speaks of motivation. If that nuance is lost on you through some failure on my part to make my point understood, then I apologise.

If it's so integral why not emphasis it more? Instead it's just two among 4. Seems like if that was integral it'd be highlighted in the opening and reinforced at the end? Or bold/underline...anything to actually highlight that it is the main point.

Orrrrr....you're just clutching to that point because then you save face and say it was my fault.

 

[Val Keating]

We aren't doing this dance again. Remember I was the one that was present to you discovering US politics a few months ago. You're unwilling to look at both sides and always bring it back to Trump. Not worth my time when you can google any number of people criticising her 'green new deal' or high school level understanding of economics. It's all there.

I don’t remember that. I started loosely following US politics around 2016. I’m fairly fluid in my beliefs- if someone proves themselves or exposes themselves as a fraud I change my opinion accordingly. Only idiots hitch themselves to a cause/idea/politician and stay unquestionably loyal even when it becomes obvious the entity isn’t what it promised to be.

It usually comes back to Trump because he does, says, or tweets something outrageous weekly. One could draw the conclusion that is his schtick to draw people away from what is really going on and focus on whatever the current media storm he’s drumming up is.

 

[Val Keating]

Any other examples?

Except I've had this discussion with Val before. It literally goes nowhere.

Where? Show me.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's okay. I saved you time. I'd hate for you to lose respect from your peers.

I wouldn't sweat anything AOC has to say, spurs. On any subject. She's a disingenuous, painfully-transparent political opportunist who appears to be going down a now well-trodden path favoured by a bunch of people of her ilk....

Step 1: Lay claim to a Bronx hood upbringing
Step 2: Profess to having an ideological epiphany that turned you towards becoming a democratic socialist
Step 3: Spout a bunch of controversial far-left nonsense to gain notoriety
Step 4: With notoriety duly established, begin to overplay topical issues/policies in a bid for mass appeal

Yawn. She offers absolutely nothing of value to political discourse. As you may have noticed from her tweets.

The Digital Age....so much to answer for.

Hey, it works.

I'm off to do some hashtagging.

 

[Devington]

If it's so integral why not emphasis it more? Instead it's just two among 4. Seems like if that was integral it'd be highlighted in the opening and reinforced at the end? Or bold/underline...anything to actually highlight that it is the main point.

Orrrrr....you're just clutching to that point because then you save face and say it was my fault.

What a strange slap fight.

TOD thinks it's the lack of 180 makes the whole comparison flawed (which seems fair enough), but you both went back and forward in a bizarre intellectual dance making your best efforts not to get straight to the crux of the matter and to try and score points, which basically just makes you both look a bit, well, silly.

That a fair enough summation?

 

[Reginald0]

Hey, it works.

I'm off to do some hashtagging.

Simplify things
Lose the tagging

 

[The Other Dean]

What a strange slap fight.

TOD thinks it's the lack of 180 makes the whole comparison flawed (which seems fair enough), but you both went back and forward in a bizarre intellectual dance making your best efforts not to get straight to the crux of the matter and to try and score points, which basically just makes you both look a bit, well, silly.

That a fair enough summation?

Ha. Okay.

I don't recall straying from my original line, and any subsequent posts were simply an exercise in reiteration. So I reckon the "best efforts not to get straight to the crux of the matter" call might be a little off. But of course, everyone's entitled to an opinion and I appreciate the feedback.


*writes Devington's name down on 'The List'*