The Pitters' Place

Derived Absurdity wrote:Funnily enough, I have also read quite a bit on him, and I've come to the conclusion he is indeed "all talking points and vague promises". He's an unscrupulous establishment pole-climber through and through.

DA is correct. Yeah, I said it.

Liszt is correct.

....Maybe a little wrong for pulling Dragon into it.

btw I'm looking through this thread carefully and there's no instance of Liszt being dishonest as far as I can see. Her argument is consistent even if her individual statements vary slightly. There's no contradiction between "You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration" and "agriculture wouldn't literally fail without illegal immigration doesn't mean it doesn't rely on it" no matter how hard you try to say otherwise.

Cassius Clay wrote:Liszt is correct.

It's like psychics. The more claims you make, the more the probability of one of them being correct approaches one.

Well yeah...that love for humanity and "roughshod" comment was tongue in cheek because I think it's pretty universally known that Sanders is totally awkward and doesn't exactly have the best person to person dialogue etiquette. And his hair...and his presidential run announcement...and let's go back to his inability to talk to people. Every politician (minus a few like Warren for example) will hate him and will block him at every turn because he'll talk right over them and through them as blunt as blunt can be but the very fact that there'd be someone even making that fight for me, bring discussion on those things I find important, and probably give the House the bird at some point. I can't ask for much more than that in todays political climate.

It's her godawful English and third world hatred of real countries, mish mashing into a weird argument that doesn't read quite right, but it does make sense...just about

/\ this is as much support as I'm giving on the matter because, frankly, I barely care enough to finish this sen

Derived Absurdity wrote:btw I'm looking through this thread carefully and there's no instance of Liszt being dishonest as far as I can see. Her argument is consistent even if her individual statements vary slightly. There's no contradiction between "You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration" and "agriculture wouldn't literally fail without illegal immigration doesn't mean it doesn't rely on it" no matter how hard you try to say otherwise.

And now DA is wrong. The balance is restored.

DA's always wrong. Especially about films. I'm starting to think it's intentional

Not that you'll care, but I'll just clarify that I'm not saying her argument is correct - I don't know enough about it to make a decision - but merely that nothing she said contradicted herself.

If you're going to insist that two contradictory statements don't contradict one another then I guess we're done here.

DA, can you tell me some of the things you dislike about him and how he's no different than the others?

Cash, I'd ask your opinion however I was informed yesterday that I was being kidnapped (along with my kittens...and another woman) and so I think I won't start any arguments with you because I don't want you all petulant as well as the jealous you'll certainly be since I'll be living in the spare bedroom with my kittens, the spare bedroom which is right next to the kidnappers room which I hear has a secret door to the spare bedroom.

CashRules wrote:If you're going to insist that two contradictory statements don't contradict one another then I guess we're done here.

Also, at the same time, we're not done here.

Yeah...for example, saying America's "success" relies on white supremacy does not necessarily mean America will fall apart without white supremacy(though there are schools of thought that believe it would).

You do realise that English isn't her first language right. Some things slip through, fuck knows I've made threads about things she's said in English that she didn't realise were wrong. So when she says she doesn't see the difference, maybe it's just subtle language differences. Actually I know it is because I asked her after pointing out how the different comments were different, she didn't realise how it was coming across. She meant that that part of your agriculture would take a big hit if you had no illegal workers, for a time it would be in the shitter, but it would recover, I think that's what she meant by it wouldn't literally fail. She just overstates things sometimes. I'm sure she didn't actually mean that your agriculture would literally, unrecoverably wither and die.

Cassius Clay wrote:....Maybe a little wrong for pulling Dragon into it.

Given that when Dragon temporarily left a few months ago she did with callout post about Liszt, I'd say they're even.

Cassius Clay wrote:Yeah...for example, saying America's "success" relies on white supremacy, does not necessarily mean American will fall apart without white supremacy(though there are schools of thought that believe it would).

Thread over.

Cassius Clay wrote:....Maybe a little wrong for pulling Dragon into it.

Yeah... sorry about that.

Azzy and Michael told me I'm contradicting myself. Maybe I am. But as I said, I never meant to say a failure of the agriculture. Otherwise I would have said "your agriculture would fail. You depend of them completely." But I didn't. Also one of my comments was meant to be sarcastic.

Derived Absurdity wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:Yeah...for example, saying America's "success" relies on white supremacy, does not necessarily mean American will fall apart without white supremacy(though there are schools of thought that believe it would).

Thread over.

Liszt was saying oppression is a major factor. Cash reframed it as if she said it was the only factor. Her mistake was not immediately correcting Cash's reframing. I am correct, as usual.

Well, sure, but I was correct first.

also, if we want a conversation about Bernie Sanders, I would rather we do it on my thread about him, or else starting a new one dedicated to it, as it might become too long.

Dr_Liszt wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:....Maybe a little wrong for pulling Dragon into it.

Yeah... sorry about that.

Azzy and Michael told me I'm contradicting myself. Maybe I am. But as I said, I never meant to say a failure of the agriculture. Otherwise I would have said "your agriculture would fail. You depend of them completely." But I didn't. Also one of my comments was meant to be sarcastic.

I don't think you really contradicted yourself. Maybe you could have been clearer or more precise...but I think, as Whitey said, it's because English is not your first language.

Whitey wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:....Maybe a little wrong for pulling Dragon into it.

Given that when Dragon temporarily left a few months ago she did with callout post about Liszt, I'd say they're even.

I see...

Azzy said, It's also because I used sarcasm, and when I use sarcasm it can come across as offensive. I'm sorry for every time I've done it. I'll stop using it or use the none face times a million. I'm sorry for any offense.

Also my Margareth Thatcher thread is also fake. It came up because I had a conversation with a public figure from here and she said that Thatcher is the reason why the UK is a progressive country. And I said no. So she accused me of being socialist and interpreting data from a resentful point of view. I'm sorry for that one too.

also, if we want a conversation about Bernie Sanders, I would rather we do it on my thread about him, or else starting a new one dedicated to it, as it might become too long.]

Where is your thread?

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

^Yeah, I'm not the one who reframed anything. But she's at least made an attempt to clarify so I'm done.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:

also, if we want a conversation about Bernie Sanders, I would rather we do it on my thread about him, or else starting a new one dedicated to it, as it might become too long.]

Where is your thread?

http://forum.pittersplace.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=654" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CashRules wrote:

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

^Yeah, I'm not the one who reframed anything. But she's at least made an attempt to clarify so I'm done.

Wow.

Why is there still argument about this? Did I not say I was correct?

End of story.

CashRules wrote:

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

^Yeah, I'm not the one who reframed anything. But she's at least made an attempt to clarify so I'm done.

She has attempted and succeeded in clarifying what she meant, don't be petty because you no longer get to point how wrong someone is. It's been explained why it wasn't reframing.

I gotta agree with Brandon that Liszt misspoke. I mean, if you can't maintain something, doesn't that mean it's literally doomed to fail? If I were to say, "you can't maintain your car without oil," that means if you don't put oil in your car, your car will break down and you'll end up with a piece of junk. I get what she meant, though, since it's now been clarified, which makes my post pointless. I just felt compelled to jump in here, because hell, when's the last time we had a thread with 80+ replies?

Also, I can't sleep.

Yes, I mispoke. I understood what Brandon meant until I reread the thing when I was telling the story to OGL.

But as Castor said, Brandon rephrased it as if I said that it was the only factor, because that's what my sentence meant. So I should have clarified that instead of trying to fix what I meant. And also, I can see that Brandon wasn't disregarding oppression, even if I felt he was.