Author Topic: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread  (Read 24820 times)

Offline |iR|Focalor

  • Irrepressibly Profuse Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14233
  • OFFO
    • View Profile
    • Focalor's Lair @ Tastyspleen.net
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #390 on: July 27, 2020, 07:03:53 PM »
If Trump is a god damn Nats fan too, then fuck him. But I'm pretty sure he's a Yankees fan, which I don't like either, but the Nats are worse, so only fuck him just a lil bit.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline haunted

  • Indefatiguably Vociferous Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9134
  • I am hollywood.
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #391 on: July 27, 2020, 08:22:37 PM »
New Dino flu in the making

  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline Punk_FAS

  • Carpal Tunnel Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #392 on: July 28, 2020, 08:42:09 AM »
Question for you two: What did you think about Trump saying: "[The Coronavirus] is [the Democrat's] new hoax" - did you find that problematic?

Anybody want to answer this question? Particularly the "problematic" part.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline metaL

  • Opulent Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2053
  • American Badass
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #393 on: July 28, 2020, 08:57:24 AM »
Question for you two: What did you think about Trump saying: "[The Coronavirus] is [the Democrat's] new hoax" - did you find that problematic?

Anybody want to answer this question? Particularly the "problematic" part.

I did answer that in detail. It's not problematic. MSM just makes it sound like something it's not.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline haunted

  • Indefatiguably Vociferous Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9134
  • I am hollywood.
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #394 on: July 28, 2020, 11:40:50 AM »
Are we trying to do round 2 of this or what?  :frustration:

Trump supporter doesn't believe the Coronavirus exists. Couldn't possibly be due to Trump's poor messaging, seemingly referring to the Coronavirus as a hoax:


https://twitter.com/i/status/1234653765724246019 - Skip to 2:55 mark.

I'm a tad surprised this wasn't posted for everyone to get a kick out of it.

I'm a tad surprised this wasn't posted for everyone to get a kick out of it.

It's more sad/concerning than funny to me - I wonder how much of an outlier this woman is in regards to general support of Trump. I see people (friends of my mother), and friends of friends on Facebook, that seem to show a similar blind devotion to Trump.

It's more sad/concerning than funny to me - I wonder how much of an outlier this woman is in regards to general support of Trump. I see people (friends of my mother), and friends of friends on Facebook, that seem to show a similar blind devotion to Trump.

The lady appears to be operating in an information-free bubble. She claims she'd only trust news about coronavirus deaths if it came directly from Trump or other Republicans. But why is she unaware that Trump held a press conference on the morning the first U.S. death was reported, in which Trump and other officials at the podium each acknowledged the death as being the result of the virus. And that they continue to hold similar press conferences, acknowledging additional deaths? How does this add up?

There's something else going on here, and it's a human problem, not confined to a particular political ideology.

There's something else going on here, and it's a human problem, not confined to a particular political ideology.

The following may be broadly relevant:

Word-Thinking Replaces Thinking in America

On a related note, once again this week people jumped out of the woodwork to label Tulsi Gabbard a "russian asset", etc., in response to a post calling out the DNC for changing the rules again to exclude Tulsi from the next debate.  :ohlord:

As the above article concludes: "Most of our political topics are too complicated for voters to comprehend. And we’re not terribly good at thinking in general. So politicians have figured out that word-thinking is the most effective form of persuasion for idiots. They are 100% right."

She claims she'd only trust news about coronavirus deaths if it came directly from Trump or other Republicans.

She didn't expressly say that - she said she wouldn't trust anything that came from a Democrat.

But why is she unaware that Trump held a press conference on the morning the first U.S. death was reported, in which Trump and other officials at the podium each acknowledged the death as being the result of the virus.

That occurred on Saturday, the 29th, right? This interview seems to have taken place on the morning or afternoon of the 2nd, a couple days later. Was that conference broadcast on Fox News? Maybe she didn't see it, or hadn't seen it yet. We'd just be guessing as to why she wasn't aware of it (if that's even the case).

There's something else going on here, and it's a human problem, not confined to a particular political ideology.

I think it's linked to Trump's cavalier manner of speaking on important topics and how that translates to what his followers believe. We have to assume a bit here, but where do you think she might have gotten the idea that this virus was not real, or a "hoax"? Maybe they just happened to interview a person that denies all supposed illnesses that are claimed to be spreading?

Look at the confirmation bias, you guys. This confirms MY bias.

Why must we have to attribute the stupid things that people say to some evil pretense? Why can't people just be plain old stupid? She's a dummy. The world is full of them. And sometimes they vote, unfortunately.

They go down the line, they talk to a few people, and the ones that fit the bill for who they are looking for, that's who they show. They have an angle they want to highlight, and they find the idiot who will shine the brightest.

A friend of my dads works at a vintage guitar shop, and he was on the news the other week talking to them about a recent robbery. I stopped in there last weekend, and he recounted to me that the news reporter promised he wouldn't use any parts of the interview he told him not to. Well... they used ONLY the parts he told them NOT to. How the store was close to bankruptcy, etc. And all because it furthers their narrative that the economy is shit and TRUMP DID IT!!! Meanwhile, everyone knows that they can walk in there and wave a little money around and talk them way down on the prices of their vintage guitars because they HAVE to make sales to try to stay open.

When they're interviewing witnesses to a robbery or a car crash... maybe less of an agenda there. But if they're interviewing people at a political rally... oh cracka please, you KNOW they're gonna have their own agenda front and center in that piece.

I see people (friends of my mother), and friends of friends on Facebook, that seem to show a similar blind devotion to Trump.

And yet you don't mention seeing any blind devotion to democrat personalities. Do you ever see that as well, or does it ONLY exist with Republicans?

If you can't say "Yes, I see blind devotion to democrats as well, and it's a problem of equal importance." , then... why not?

She claims she'd only trust news about coronavirus deaths if it came directly from Trump or other Republicans.
She didn't expressly say that - she said she wouldn't trust anything that came from a Democrat.

Thanks. Correction accepted. Here's the transcript:

Reporter: So you don't believe coronavirus exists?
Interviewee: I don't.
Reporter: So the two people who have been reported to have died from it in Washington state: You don't trust that that's true?
Interviewee: I don't trust anything the Democrats do.
Reporter: So that was put out by the governor of that state. It's been put out by bi-partisan lawmakers.
Interviewee: Were they Democrats?
Reporter: Republicans and Democrats, agreeing that there are people who have contracted the virus, two of whom have died so far.
Interviewee: Yeah, I mean I just don't believe it.


I think it's linked to Trump's cavalier manner of speaking on important topics and how that translates to what his followers believe. We have to assume a bit here, but where do you think she might have gotten the idea that this virus was not real, or a "hoax"?

Well there's some top-tier irony here, since the false allegation that Trump pronounced the virus a "hoax" was pushed HARD by innumerable media outlets and pundits a week ago Friday.


https://twitter.com/Milbank/status/1233555987149312000

Headline after headline, verified "journalist" after "journalist" pushing the falsehood.

But yes, I guess it's a great question: Where would people have gotten the idea Trump said something he didn't say?


There are so many deceptively edited versions, it takes a little digging to find the unedited footage. Here it is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcJRDLWhl9Q

He says "this is their new hoax" in the context of Democratic politicization of his administration's handling of the virus. It's clear he wasn't calling the virus itself a hoax, since the very next thing he does is to take credit for handling the initial 15 cases quickly, saying if he hadn't acted early we'd have had a lot more cases than that.

I'd be happy to have headlines criticizing his handling of the initial containment, etc. But I wish they would stop lying, and effectively forcing me to have to defend this clown.


Maybe they just happened to interview a person that denies all supposed illnesses that are claimed to be spreading?

Well, I mean, the guy standing directly behind the lady speaks immediately after her:

Reporter: Republicans and Democrats, agreeing that there are people who have contracted the virus, two of whom have died so far.
Lady: Yeah, I mean I just don't believe it.
Next Guy: I believe this is a valid virus that's spreading around the world, and we've got to do something to protect ourselves.

So flip a coin, I guess. We could pick Next Guy as an example of how reasonable and well-informed Trump supporters are, if we wanted to single him out instead.

It's clear he wasn't calling the virus itself a hoax, since the very next thing he does is to take credit for handling the initial 15 cases quickly, saying if he hadn't acted early we'd have had a lot more cases than that.
I disagree; I don't think it's clear at all.

He says, "Now the Democrats are politicizing the Coronavirus, you know that, right? Coronavirus. They're politicizing it". This isn't a clear acknowledgement of its existence - it could easily be interpreted as something the Democrats are making up to attack him. He then says, "We did one of the great jobs, you see...", on what? He then says, speaking as a hypothetical reporter asking a Democratic congressman (my guess) a question - "How's President Trump doing", again, on what? With his stream-of-consciousness style of speaking, he could have easily been talking about his general peformance. He trails off so much, and has such a penchant for rambling and changing his train of thought mid-sentence that it's not clear that "we did one of the great jobs" is on tackling the actual Coronavirus threat. He then says, "We have(?) 15 people in this massive country".

Anyway, it's a lot to manually transcript, but I don't know how anyone can say it's clear what he's talking about. If any of his supporters watched that and came away with the notion that the Coronavirus was a hoax being perpetuated by "The Democrats", what are the odds they watched that clip more than once to clarify they fully understood exactly what he was saying? I had to watch it multiple times to feel like I understood what he's saying.

Your standard of what-acknowledges something's-existence is very strict considering we're referring to someone who calls anything lacking the tiniest bit of validity "fake news" on a whim.

He's been bragging about restricting travel early on every chance he can get (many democrats were against this, some even called him racist for doing so, he usually adds). That's what he meant by doing a "great job".

No one has to watch that multiple times....

Your standard of what-acknowledges something's-existence is very strict considering we're referring to someone who calls anything lacking the tiniest bit of validity "fake news" on a whim.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Trump's declaration of "Fake News" has little to nothing to do with something's validity, from my perspective, it has way more to do with how it will affect his image.

He says, "Now the Democrats are politicizing the Coronavirus, you know that, right? Coronavirus. They're politicizing it". This isn't a clear acknowledgement of its existence - it could easily be interpreted as something the Democrats are making up to attack him.

"politicizing" an event is in common parlance. When we talk about someone politicizing a mass shooting, that's never meant that they doubt its historicity.


He then says, "We did one of the great jobs, you see...", on what?

He then says, speaking as a hypothetical reporter asking a Democratic congressman (my guess) a question - "How's President Trump doing", again, on what?

How can you claim to be unsure whether he's still talking about coronavirus in the above statements, then suddenly realize his subsequent statement is about coronavirus as soon as he says the word "hoax"?

Can't have it both ways.


If any of his supporters watched that and came away with the notion that the Coronavirus was a hoax being perpetuated by "The Democrats", what are the odds they watched that clip more than once to clarify they fully understood exactly what he was saying? I had to watch it multiple times to feel like I understood what he's saying.

Again, the irony is: the people most likely to think Trump called the virus a hoax are those who have seen the dishonest coverage and deceptively edited video.

And notice how the deceptive edits always leave off what he says right after the "hoax" comment: "You know, we did something that's been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country, and because of the fact that we went early, we won early. We could have had a lot more than that."

You'd have to have a degree in Journalism to pretend to not understand what he's talking about.


In any case, certainly the people attending that rally would not have been confused, considering Trump mentioned taking action against the virus several times during that event!

C-SPAN has full video, with an (uncorrected auto-generated) transcript:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?469663-1/president-trump-campaign-event-north-charleston-south-carolina

Some excerpts (which I've manually corrected where possible):

AND SO FAR WE HAVE LOST NOBODY TO CORONAVIRUS IN THE UNITED STATES. NOBODY. AND IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T. WE ARE TOTALLY PREPARED. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE WON'T.
[…]
WE ARE MAGNIFICENTLY ORGANIZED WITH THE BEST PROFESSIONALS IN THE WORLD ARE YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THE WORST BUT HOPEFULLY IT WILL ALL AMOUNT TO VERY LITTLE. THAT IS WHAT I TELL YOU WHEN WE HAVE THE FLU WITH 35,000 PEOPLE AND THIS ONE IS, WE HAVE TO TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. WE ARE PREPARING FOR THE WORST. MY ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN THE MOST AGGRESSIVE ACTION IN MODERN HISTORY TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THIS ILLNESS IN THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE READY. WE ARE READY. TOTALLY READY. [CHEERING] ON JANUARY 31, I ORDERED THE SUSPENSION OF FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO HAVE RECENTLY BEEN IN CHINA FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. [CHEERING] AN ACTION WHICH THE DEMOCRATS LOUDLY CRITICIZED AND PROTESTED AND NOW EVERYBODY'S COMPLEMENTING ME SAYING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. COULD'VE BEEN A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY. I SAID, LET'S GET THIS RIGHT. A VIRUS STARTS IN CHINA, BLEEDS ITS WAY INTO VARIOUS COUNTRIES ALL AROUND THE WORLD, DOES'NT SPREAD WIDELY AT ALL IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF THE EARLY ACTIONS THAT MYSELF AND MY ADMINISTRATION TOOK AGAINST A LOT OF OTHER WISHES. AND THE DEMOCRATS SINGLE TALKING POINT, AND YOU SEE IT, IS THAT IT'S DONALD TRUMP'S FAULT, RIGHT? NOW, JUST THINGS THAT HAPPEN. THINGS HAPPEN. WHOEVER THOUGHT OF THIS. TWO WEEKS AGO WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE GOING ON, FOUR WEEKS AGO? BUT THINGS HAPPEN IN LIFE AND YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED AND YOU HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE AND HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND GET IT. MY GUYS, WE HAVE THE BEST PROFESSIONALS IN THE WORLD, THE BEST IN THE WORLD AND WE ARE SO READY. AT THE SAME TIME THAT I INITIATED THE FIRST FEDERALLY MANDATED QUARANTINE IN OVER 50 YEARS, WE HAD TO QUARANTINE SOME PEOPLE. THEY WERE NOT HAPPY. THEY WEREN'T HAPPY ABOUT IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE NOT SO HAPPY BUT AFTER TWO WEEKS THEY GOT HAPPY. YOU KNOW WHO GOT HAPPY, THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM GOT HAPPY, THAT'S WHO GOT HAPPY. I ALSO CREATED A WHITE HOUSE VIRUS TASK FORCE. IT'S A BIG THING. I REQUESTED $2.5 BILLION TO ENSURE WE HAVE THE RESOURCES WE NEED.
[…]
ONE OF THE REASONS THE NUMBERS ARE SO GOOD. WE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO KEEP THE INFECTION AND THOSE CARRYING THE INFECTION FROM ENTERING OUR COUNTRY. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. WHETHER IT IS THE VIRUS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OR MANY OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH THREATS, THE DEMOCRAT POLICY OF OPEN BORDERS IS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF ALL AMERICANS. NOW, YOU SEE IT WITH THE CORONAVIRUS. YOU SEE IT. YOU SEE IT WITH THE CORONAVIRUS. YOU SEE THAT. WHEN YOU HAVE THIS VIRUS OR ANY OTHER VIRUS OR ANY OTHER PROBLEM COMING IN, IT'S NOT THE ONLY THING THAT COMES IN THROUGH THE BORDER AND WE ARE SETTING RECORDS NOW AT THE BORDER.


Now imagine having a Journalism degree, with an ostensible responsibility to get the facts straight. And instead of that, you and all your little partisan hack cronies push out a tidal wave of fake news across the Internet and television and newspapers claiming that Trump called coronavirus a "hoax" at this rally.

I am 100% behind Trump when he calls the fake news media the enemy of the people.

I don't care whether it's fake news from the left or from the right, fuck all these lying motherfuckers.

Sheesh.

"politicizing" an event is in common parlance. When we talk about someone politicizing a mass shooting, that's never meant that they doubt its historicity.

Maybe I'm not being charitable enough with how intelligent your typical Trump supporter or rally attendee is. I see so many seemingly uneducated ones on various social networking platforms that it has me questioning their ability to understand what he's saying sometime. Again, that lady had to have gotten the idea that the Coronavirus didn't exist from somewhere, and her being at a Trump rally leads me to believe it very likely came from Trump's unclear messaging.

I don't think his messaging was very clear, but I'll agree/admit that he doesn't explicitly say that the Coronavirus itself is a hoax.

Maybe I'm not being charitable enough with how intelligent your typical Trump supporter or rally attendee is.

Maybe? Definitely, dude. When you say 'from my perspective' and disagree like it's tomatoe/tomato or something it's leaving me scratching my head. This back and forth that we're having isn't based on beliefs or difference of opinion. It's what someone said, and you are extremely twisting things to meet your own narrative. When there are ACTUAL differences of opinions on here we can all agree to disagree, but that's NOT what's happening here.

For example:

I don't think his messaging was very clear, but I'll agree/admit that he doesn't explicitly say that the Coronavirus itself is a hoax.

Agreeing that he didn't explicitly say that the coronavirus is a hoax isn't an agree/disagree thing. It's not up in the air. He didn't.

Your standard of what-acknowledges something's-existence is very strict considering we're referring to someone who calls anything lacking the tiniest bit of validity "fake news" on a whim.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Trump's declaration of "Fake News" has little to nothing to do with something's validity, from my perspective, it has way more to do with how it will affect his image.

Really? You're saying you're not sure you understand what I'm saying here? I read this last night, and decided to just go to bed from how silly this reply was. This thread is enjoyable to me and the more input the better, but I'm not going to play some game of who can twist something to fit their own narrative as much as possible.

Really? You're saying you're not sure you understand what I'm saying here? I read this last night, and decided to just go to bed from how silly this reply was.

Perhaps I didn't understand what you were saying because you implied that Trump's trigger for saying something is "fake news" has anything at all to do with the topic's legitimacy. This implies that if something, anything, painted Trump in a negative light there is the potential of him conceding that it was true and that he failed, screwed up, or the criticism was justified. That's not how his brain works.

This is what I meant:

As far as public figures are concerned trump is that guy who won't hesitate to let everyone know if he thinks something is fake, phony, a hoax, etc. I was saying that your guidelines for "acknowledging something's existence"(synonymous to "real", the opposite of fake) is very strict considering it's trump. It was a nice way of saying that you hate the guy's guts and you think his supporters are all morons, and your reasoning reflects that.

Trump's messaging is often not clear (particularly at his rallies or when he goes off script). In those situations, he frequently breaks focus on the topic at hand, branching off to talk about something else he was just reminded of, only to come back to what he was talking about a moment or two later. You can't blame people for misunderstanding what he's trying to say when's he's so incoherent.

Example of what I'm talking about attached here.

Is there anything else you'd like to discuss other than putting yourself into the shoes of feeble-minded trump supporters then imaginatively speculating how they misinterpret his informal trumpspeak?

Trump's messaging is often not clear (particularly at his rallies or when he goes off script). In those situations, he frequently breaks focus on the topic at hand, branching off to talk about something else he was just reminded of, only to come back to what he was talking about a moment or two later. You can't blame people for misunderstanding what he's trying to say when's he's so incoherent.

Hang on. You've just been presented with evidence of Trump going on and on, unambiguously, about coronavirus "bleeding its way into various countries around the world" - and his claims that early efforts at quarantine and travel restrictions had limited the spread here; and how he'd requested billions of dollars to combat further spread of the infection and created a task force to handle it. Occurring in the very same rally where disingenuous hacks tried to spin "it's their new hoax" as if Trump were calling the virus itself a hoax.

Who Are The People Who Are Misunderstanding here?

Reminded of: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Quote
Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted.






Example of what I'm talking about attached here.

Yeah. Typical waffle when Trump does't have the details. For me it boils down to Trump suggesting he could do a better deal with Iran than prior presidents.

Typical waffle when Trump does't have the details.

A polite way of saying he doesn't know what he's talking about, but speaks about the topic anyway.

For me it boils down to Trump suggesting he could do a better deal with Iran than prior presidents.

It'd be great if we didn't have to take our best guess at what he's trying to say, but he'd have to communicate differently for that to be a reality.

I think haunted nailed it above, "Is there anything else you'd like to discuss other than putting yourself into the shoes of feeble-minded trump supporters then imaginatively speculating how they misinterpret his informal trumpspeak?"


I'd begun a nuanced reply to the rest of your post. But it's time to stop and notice whether you acknowledge the "journalistic" claims that Trump called the coronavirus a "hoax" are trivially proven false by the totality of his speech at that campaign event.

What say you?

I think it's highly likely that a number of outlets understood what Trump meant, but took advantage of the appearance of him suggesting the virus itself was a hoax (or at least focusing on the word "hoax" and implying things he didn't imply). That's dishonest journalism and I don't support such things. Thanks for the supporting evidence from other points in that rally speech where he's clearly acknowledging his administration's substantial efforts to confront the virus.

You'd have to have a degree in Journalism to pretend to not understand what he's talking about.

 :badgrin: :thumbsup:

Yeah, I was hoping to double major in college in Journalism and English. And then I realized how much I would've hated myself for becoming a journalist in THAT system. And I never did decide what I would pivot to, eventually dropped out, and I'm disappointed I didn't get SOME KIND of degree, but glad I didn't spend all the time it would've taken to get THAT one. Would've been a waste.

And speaking of pretending to not hear things...

I see people (friends of my mother), and friends of friends on Facebook, that seem to show a similar blind devotion to Trump.

And yet you don't mention seeing any blind devotion to democrat personalities. Do you ever see that as well, or does it ONLY exist with Republicans?

If you can't say "Yes, I see blind devotion to democrats as well, and it's a problem of equal importance." , then... why not?

If you can't see blind devotion to democrats, perhaps you are blindly devoted to them. I'm not saying you are, I'm not calling people dirty names, I'm just asking you to consider that possibility and ruminate upon it. Because I would assert that "partisan" in total favor of either party should be considered a dirty word and a label no one should aspire to anymore. Neither side seems to genuinely give a shit about anyone but themselves anymore, so it's our job to use what tools we have to do the best job of taking care of ourselves FOR ourselves. And sometimes we're gonna have to vote for shitheads to get that done, especially when ALL the choices are shitheads.

I think it's highly likely that a number of outlets understood what Trump meant, but took advantage of the appearance of him suggesting the virus itself was a hoax (or at least focusing on the word "hoax" and implying things he didn't imply). That's dishonest journalism and I don't support such things. Thanks for the supporting evidence from other points in that rally speech where he's clearly acknowledging his administration's substantial efforts to confront the virus.

OK, it's great to have some mutually-agreed-upon anchor point that hopefully describes reality. :beer:

I asked if you could do everyone a favor and not revisit this. It's strange that you always interpret this as people dodging your questions. C'mon dude.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline Punk_FAS

  • Carpal Tunnel Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #395 on: July 28, 2020, 12:44:03 PM »
I'll ask again... is Trump saying what I quoted earlier problematic or not? I'm asking Haunted this time, metal already said it wasn't problematic.

I'm not reading all that rehashed stuff, haunted, because it's irrelevant to the point of my question.

I'm trying to make a point, but you guys (haunted, rather) won't answer my question to allow me to do so.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline |iR|Focalor

  • Irrepressibly Profuse Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14233
  • OFFO
    • View Profile
    • Focalor's Lair @ Tastyspleen.net
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #396 on: July 28, 2020, 01:36:32 PM »
I'm not reading all that rehashed stuff, haunted, because it's irrelevant to the point of my question.

And your question was...

What did you think about Trump saying: "[The Coronavirus] is [the Democrat's] new hoax" - did you find that problematic?

Which was directly addressed by the rehashed stuff here...

Well there's some top-tier irony here, since the false allegation that Trump pronounced the virus a "hoax" was pushed HARD by innumerable media outlets and pundits a week ago Friday.


https://twitter.com/Milbank/status/1233555987149312000

Headline after headline, verified "journalist" after "journalist" pushing the falsehood.

But yes, I guess it's a great question: Where would people have gotten the idea Trump said something he didn't say?


There are so many deceptively edited versions, it takes a little digging to find the unedited footage. Here it is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcJRDLWhl9Q

He says "this is their new hoax" in the context of Democratic politicization of his administration's handling of the virus. It's clear he wasn't calling the virus itself a hoax, since the very next thing he does is to take credit for handling the initial 15 cases quickly, saying if he hadn't acted early we'd have had a lot more cases than that.

I'd be happy to have headlines criticizing his handling of the initial containment, etc. But I wish they would stop lying, and effectively forcing me to have to defend this clown.

That answered it - or so I thought... but apparently not to your satisfaction, because...

I'm trying to make a point, but you guys (haunted, rather) won't answer my question to allow me to do so.

So it's clear that you are trying to make a point which is somehow contingent upon Haunted's answer. So I must assume that you are attempting to illicit some specific response from him so that you can then interject with an, "A-HA! But THIS is why you are wrong, sir!" Rather than risking him answering it differently, or something else concurring which might further sidetrack whatever point you have waiting in the wings, why not just come right out and say what you really mean to say?

Making your points contingent upon someones answer to a leading question you posed is obvious gamesmanship. If that's how you want to approach this thread, it's a free country, go ahead. But I don't think "winning" is a realistic objective in a political discussion like this. Baptists and Methodists will never attend the same church forever. Eventually... shit's gonna happen, things will be said, ways will be parted.

NEVERTHELESS... you had a point to make. So say it.

And I will still play along:

I'm cool with what he said, even though he didn't explicitly say what you wrote (and you acknowledge as much by using brackets to modify his statement). In my opinion, the gist of what he was saying was that he felt like the Democratic party was attempting to use circumstances surrounding the Coronavirus to politically maneuver and exploit the situation. And I do not have a problem with him expressing that opinion.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline quadz

  • Brobdingnagian Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4810
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #397 on: July 28, 2020, 02:33:30 PM »
I'm trying to make a point, but you guys (haunted, rather) won't answer my question to allow me to do so.
So it's clear that you are trying to make a point which is somehow contingent upon Haunted's answer. So I must assume that you are attempting to illicit some specific response from him so that you can then interject with an, "A-HA! But THIS is why you are wrong, sir!"

If I'm following the 1D Chess playing out here, I think it's supposed to end up something like:

1. if one agrees it's wrong for the media to have taken Trump out of context, and pushed a blatant lie about the meaning of Trumps words (a lie that was easily debunked by the broader context)

2. then one should agree it's wrong for other media to take a freeze-frame of Fauci and promote it as an exemplar of hypocrisy, provided the broader context would similarly exonerate Fauci

If that's truly where we're headed, then it's hard to imagine we'd find much disagreement among the correspondents here.

  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus
"He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

Offline metaL

  • Opulent Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2053
  • American Badass
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #398 on: July 28, 2020, 03:34:27 PM »
I see the concept behind the Trump vs Fauci example, but it's too big of a stretch. On its face, Trump is not supposed to be the (societally accepted) world expert on whether something is a hoax or not (he just likes trolling democrats and the media while energizing his base), yet Fauci is propped up as the world expert on Covid19 (or "Covid9" if Joe Biden is reading this). And more importantly, the nonstop 3.5+ years of an all out ONSLAUGHT by the media against Trump really doesn't give anyone else room to complain about something being taken out of context. Of course, any deceitful propaganda is bad, no matter who or what it is against. But this example is like showing the one episode where Wiley Coyote caught the road runner and acting like it's an average episode.

I provided a much better example already. Snapshots were taken of Ted Cruz not wearing a mask on an airplane and people pounced on him online. It looked as if someone was waiting for the moment that Cruz would take his mask off so they could get a picture (same as Fauci). However Cruz had a drink IN HIS HAND in the picture. Fauci looked like he was relaxed and almost zoned out, focused on the game (for who knows how long). And I'm not here asking for the "just because you can't see his cupholder in the picture doesn't mean it isn't there" argument. What I'm trying to point out is that Cruz is not supposed to be the Covid19 expert. Fauci is. And I'm willing to bet that whoever got a picture of Cruz would have ABSOLUTELY gotten a picture of him NOT holding his drink with his mask off but couldn't. A lot of these "pictures" are often screenshots of videos on a badass video camera. Pictures don't tell us much, but the Fauci picture is worse.

And how long exactly ARE you supposed to be unmasked while not drinking a beverage? After you put the beverage down, do you put your mask back on temporarily? Or do you just leave it off and chill like the societally accepted expert that tells us all what to do during a pandemic? If you're taking a sip every 5-10 minutes, just leave your mask off? Should we all just walk down the fucking street with a bottled water? If that gets me out of wearing a mask SIGN ME UP.

Not a bad attempt. But the example doesn't apply directly enough.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline |iR|Focalor

  • Irrepressibly Profuse Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14233
  • OFFO
    • View Profile
    • Focalor's Lair @ Tastyspleen.net
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #399 on: July 28, 2020, 03:44:47 PM »
Besides the fact that he should be raped to death by mutant hyenas on crystal meth for apparently liking the Washington Nationals, there's NOBODY in the fucking stands at baseball games right now. So even if he is sitting there with no mask on for an hour, picking his nose, wiping the boogars on the underside of the armrests, and rubbing his eyes... who's getting upset about it? Some drama queen attention whore with nothing to do and a social media account who maybe knows lots of other drama queen attention whores with nothing to do and a social media account.

Here's 10 hours of chicken sounds. Basically the same thing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS_J6C6rZiQ
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline metaL

  • Opulent Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2053
  • American Badass
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #400 on: July 28, 2020, 03:54:21 PM »
Hey man all i did was post a picture and note the hypocrisy. The context warrants the hypocrisy's mention.

Btw, i love your tirades. An old dredger I used to work with would say "maybe he'll be gang raped by a bus load of Haitian bull queers". I can't say I didn't laugh.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline haunted

  • Indefatiguably Vociferous Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9134
  • I am hollywood.
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #401 on: July 28, 2020, 03:57:51 PM »
I'm not reading all that rehashed stuff, haunted

We agree! I don't want to dive into that discussion again either. The lengths it took to get you to concede that trump didn't say Coronavirus was a hoax were immeasurably tedious :beer:
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline metaL

  • Opulent Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2053
  • American Badass
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #402 on: July 28, 2020, 04:06:54 PM »

https://youtu.be/9v3cUxCMsM4

Everyone seems to be talking about this (censorship)

Many groups want this virus to cripple this nation. That is obvious. Who defines what is misinformation? The CDC recommended re-opening schools. But NoOoOoOo
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline Punk_FAS

  • Carpal Tunnel Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #403 on: July 28, 2020, 05:11:37 PM »
I'm trying to make a point, but you guys (haunted, rather) won't answer my question to allow me to do so.
So it's clear that you are trying to make a point which is somehow contingent upon Haunted's answer. So I must assume that you are attempting to illicit some specific response from him so that you can then interject with an, "A-HA! But THIS is why you are wrong, sir!"

If I'm following the 1D Chess playing out here, I think it's supposed to end up something like:

1. if one agrees it's wrong for the media to have taken Trump out of context, and pushed a blatant lie about the meaning of Trumps words (a lie that was easily debunked by the broader context)

2. then one should agree it's wrong for other media to take a freeze-frame of Fauci and promote it as an exemplar of hypocrisy, provided the broader context would similarly exonerate Fauci

If that's truly where we're headed, then it's hard to imagine we'd find much disagreement among the correspondents here.

Sorta. I wanted to point out that when Trump said something negligent (relating the word "hoax" with anything related to Covid, regardless of context), and I pointed it out, it seems everyone here jumped all over the fact that context was ignored with regard to what he said - ok, fair point. The Fauci picture is shared, and I point out the important context that was omitted (the woman being his wife; him testing negative literally the previous day (masks protect others from you if you're sick - he wasn't); the man sitting next to him being a close friend (wearing a mask); literally no one else anywhere near them; them being outside; the fact that he had just drank water; and the fact that it was literally just a photograph with no reference to how long his mask was off), and haunted and metal start talking about "leading through his own example", and otherwise dismissing the context entirely. Trump gets a pass though. It strikes me as a double standard and I wanted to point it out.
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

Offline haunted

  • Indefatiguably Vociferous Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 9134
  • I am hollywood.
    • View Profile
  • Rated:
Re: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Thread
« Reply #404 on: July 28, 2020, 05:20:08 PM »
I'm trying to make a point, but you guys (haunted, rather) won't answer my question to allow me to do so.
So it's clear that you are trying to make a point which is somehow contingent upon Haunted's answer. So I must assume that you are attempting to illicit some specific response from him so that you can then interject with an, "A-HA! But THIS is why you are wrong, sir!"

If I'm following the 1D Chess playing out here, I think it's supposed to end up something like:

1. if one agrees it's wrong for the media to have taken Trump out of context, and pushed a blatant lie about the meaning of Trumps words (a lie that was easily debunked by the broader context)

2. then one should agree it's wrong for other media to take a freeze-frame of Fauci and promote it as an exemplar of hypocrisy, provided the broader context would similarly exonerate Fauci

If that's truly where we're headed, then it's hard to imagine we'd find much disagreement among the correspondents here.

Finally off work. There wouldn't be obviously, and just as obvious was punk's intent in asking that(I know it's difficult to imagine a feeble-minded trump supporter to possess the foresight to see the motive there, but everyone will just have to take my word for it). I'd only point out that the examples are not synonymous lol, which the differences have already been noted. The whole baiting questions with examples that are of varying degrees OF something isn't my idea of productive discussion around here. Like foc said it's a free country, but I think the golden rule applies perfectly for our political forum here. I could personally do better. Not to give the same ol' excuse, but it's a little tough to keep one's cool when just the process of giving a long thorough bulleted response is daunting from a phone, let alone when I'm replying to some tedious shenanigans and/or based on the premise that I'm a right wing establishment lover, trump lover, etc.

I just fail to see anything in my post that warranted such a response anyway. If equating two double-standards was the goal here, then that's where I'd have an issue haha. I don't even care that he didn't have a mask on.  :exqueezeme:
  • Insightful
    Informative
    Funny
    Nice Job / Good Work
    Rock On
    Flawless Logic
    Well-Reasoned Argument and/or Conclusion
    Demonstrates Exceptional Knowlege of the Game
    Appears Not to Comprehend Game Fundamentals
    Frag of the Week
    Frag Hall of Fame
    Jump of the Week
    Jump Hall of Fame
    Best Solution
    Wins The Internet
    Whoosh! You done missed the joke thar Cletus!
    Obvious Troll Is Obvious
    DO YOU EVEN LIFT?
    DEMO OR STFU
    Offtopic
    Flamebait
    Redundant
    Factually Challenged
    Preposterously Irrational Arguments
    Blindingly Obvious Logical Fallacies
    Absurd Misconstrual of Scientific Principles or Evidence
    Amazing Conspiracy Theory Bro
    Racist Ignoramus

 

El Box de Shoutamente

Last 10 Shouts:

 

adz1La

October 18, 2020, 12:05:02 AM
 ;)
 

|iR|Focalor

October 10, 2020, 11:35:41 PM
 

beaver{KEA}

October 07, 2020, 06:16:38 PM
6V6+ ON RA2 NOW

pepp5

October 06, 2020, 03:19:43 PM
My standard way of encouraging people to quit farting around and start the match:  Eddie Van Halen up.  RIP EVH.
 

quadz

October 06, 2020, 01:17:03 PM
R.I.P. Eddie Van Halen :(
 

Admin

September 23, 2020, 09:43:07 AM
It's the same VPN-using misanthrope who's been at this for months. Recently switched to sending private messages.
 

[BTF]Fatknitty

September 23, 2020, 08:30:36 AM
can someone please get rid of the spambot on DM?

-Unh0ly-

September 20, 2020, 03:34:22 AM

-Unh0ly-

September 18, 2020, 12:47:34 AM

https://youtu.be/keF839vDH0A

joe rogan is  a quaker !!!!
 

|iR|Focalor

September 11, 2020, 12:54:20 AM

Show 50 latest
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 20, 2020, 07:29:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length