Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Two scenarios. Same underlying cause. Different GOP reaction.

Two scenarios. Same underlying cause. Different GOP reaction.

+4
QueenOfHearts
Sal
Nekochan
boards of FL
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

boards of FL

boards of FL

Scenario A:  Climategate

 - Based on hacked emails

 - Doesn't actually show any controversy

 - GOP supporters ignore how the underlying information came to be and instead conclude, incorrectly, that the scientific consensus on climate change is a massive conspiracy - in spite of the fact that nothing in the leaked information even remotely suggests as much

Scenario B:  Sterling and the Clippers

 - Based on a secret tape recording

 - Irrefutably confirmed something that perfectly meshes with Sterling's past

 - GOP has no interest in any consequences for Sterling or any question of his character, and instead looks to him as a victim.  The very fact that his despicable remarks - with mirror those of his past - were tape recorded in secret means that this should completely be stricken from all record, and we should all just move on.  Any action that may be taken against Sterling would somehow mean that the first amendment is being ignored


Now in Scenario A, it is obvious what is happening there.  GOP supporters have been duped into believing that the 97% consensus among scientists on climate change is a massive conspiracy.  As a result, they are willing to swallow any bit of news - real or completely BS - as a means of validating their worldview.  So when a story of hacked emails surfaces, it didn't matter how those emails were obtained.  Hell, it didn't even matter what they said.  Two scientists are conversing via email.  That must mean that there is a conspiracy.  So the logic went.

Then we have Scenario B.  It is similar to Scenario A in that the underlying event that broke the story was the illegal attainment of information.  Only this time, GOP supporters have chosen to make the way in which the information was obtained the central issue.  OK.  But why?  In Scenario A, we know they were willing to completely overlook that detail so that they could validate their fringe, divorced-from-reality worldview.  One has to wonder, what is going on in the GOP mind in Scenario B?   Why does it suddenly matter how information was obtained?  Is some other worldview being validated or perhaps supported in some way?  If so, what?

Anyone care to answer that?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

It's amazing how much you have to ignore to make your conclusions.

A) Where's the data that mann used to create his models and is the bases of those emails?

B) Who here has defended racism or expressed a desire that there be no consequences?

Nekochan

Nekochan

The GOP supports Sterling? Really?
Geez, you're becoming more like FT all the time. Before long you'll be talking about how Bush brought down the WTC.

boards of FL

boards of FL

One more time.   The way in which information was obtained in Scenario A was completely irrelevant.  It wasn't even a discussion point.  In Scenario B, the way in which the information was obtained is now the central issue of the story, all else is cast aside.

Why?  The question is about the way in which the information was obtained and the polar opposite ways in which GOP supporters view that as an issue.

In one issue it doesn't matter. In the other, it is the only thing that matters.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Where has the "GOP" came out in favor of Sterling? Where? Can you give a link?

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:Where has the "GOP" came out in favor of Sterling?   Where?    Can you give a link?


I'm referring to GOP supporters. And you're still not addressing the question that was asked.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Where has the "GOP" came out in favor of Sterling?   Where?    Can you give a link?


I'm referring to GOP supporters.  And you're still not addressing the question that was asked.

You actually said the GOP.
Now, which GOP supporters support Sterling?

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Where has the "GOP" came out in favor of Sterling?   Where?    Can you give a link?


I'm referring to GOP supporters.  And you're still not addressing the question that was asked.

You actually said the GOP.
Now, which GOP supporters support Sterling?


I'm not going to explain this a third time. You can either read the previous posts and understand what I'm asking, or you can't.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Where has the "GOP" came out in favor of Sterling?   Where?    Can you give a link?


I'm referring to GOP supporters.  And you're still not addressing the question that was asked.

You actually said the GOP.
Now, which GOP supporters support Sterling?


I'm not going to explain this a third time.  You can either read the previous posts and understand what I'm asking, or you can't.  

Of course you won't because you've made a mistake.  If you cannot name the GOP supporters that came out in support of Sterling then you have no case.   The most adamant defenders of free speech on the Sterling thread are not known on the forum as the GOP or as big GOP supporters, that I am aware of.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:Of course you won't because you've made a mistake.  If you cannot name the GOP supporters that came out in support of Sterling then you have no case.


Help me understand why I am now being tasked with specifically naming GOP supporters who support Sterling?  I don't see how that would help you answer my question at all, and I don't believe I have said as much.  

For the umpteenth time, the question is about the way each story broke.  The question is about the underlying information that lead to each story, and how it was obtained. I would try and state this even simpler that I already have, but I don't think that is even possible.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Of course you won't because you've made a mistake.  If you cannot name the GOP supporters that came out in support of Sterling then you have no case.


Help me understand why I am now being tasked with specifically naming GOP supporters who support Sterling?  I don't see how that would help you answer my question at all, and I don't believe I have said as much.

You started the thread, with the accusation about the GOP.
Even the defenders of free speech aren't defending Sterling's words. I think everyone pretty much agrees that he's a sleazy, racist slimeball.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:You started the thread, with the accusation about the GOP.
Even the defenders of free speech aren't defending Sterling's words.   I think everyone pretty much agrees that he's a sleazy, racist slimeball.  


I started this thread so that I could ask GOP supporters to reconcile their reactions to two stories.  What am I asking them to reconcile specifically?  The weight that they give to a detail such as how the information that broke each story was obtained.  

In one scenario, the way the information was obtained was irrelevant.  In the other story, it is the only thing that matters.

The entire point of this thread is to ask GOP supporters to explain how that works.   I can't state this any simpler at this point.

If all this is still too confusing, just read the thread title: Two scenarios. Same underlying cause. Different GOP reaction.

Two scenarios: A and B

Same underlying cause: Illegally obtained information

Different GOP reactions: It doesn't matter vs. It is the only thing that matters.


Can some other person step in here and tell me if I am really being that cryptic here? Is this really that hard to wrap ones head around?


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Of course you won't because you've made a mistake.  If you cannot name the GOP supporters that came out in support of Sterling then you have no case.


Help me understand why I am now being tasked with specifically naming GOP supporters who support Sterling?  I don't see how that would help you answer my question at all, and I don't believe I have said as much.

You started the thread, with the accusation about the GOP.
Even the defenders of free speech aren't defending Sterling's words.   I think everyone pretty much agrees that he's a sleazy, racist slimeball.  

When you start your argument with something like, "Well yeah, of course he's a racist slimeball, but ...."

It's pretty clear to most people where you're headed.

Guest


Guest

Your premise is flawed... but you knew that... or at worst now know it. Perhaps salon or kos or nation can help.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You started the thread, with the accusation about the GOP.
Even the defenders of free speech aren't defending Sterling's words.   I think everyone pretty much agrees that he's a sleazy, racist slimeball.  


I started this thread so that I could ask GOP supporters to reconcile their reactions to two stories.  What am I asking them to reconcile specifically?  The weight that they give to a detail such as how the information that broke each story was obtained.  

In one scenario, the way the information was obtained was irrelevant.  In the other story, it is the only thing that matters.

The entire point of this thread is to ask GOP supporters to explain how that works.   I can't state this any simpler at this point.

Once again, some of the most adamant defenders of free speech on that Sterling thread are not known on the forum to be the GOP or GOP supporters. If a couple of liberal posters and a couple of conservative posters make similar comments on a subject, I don't jump to the conclusion that "the DNC" supports that stance, while ignoring what the conservative posters said.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Sal wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Of course you won't because you've made a mistake.  If you cannot name the GOP supporters that came out in support of Sterling then you have no case.


Help me understand why I am now being tasked with specifically naming GOP supporters who support Sterling?  I don't see how that would help you answer my question at all, and I don't believe I have said as much.

You started the thread, with the accusation about the GOP.
Even the defenders of free speech aren't defending Sterling's words.   I think everyone pretty much agrees that he's a sleazy, racist slimeball.  

When you start your argument with something like, "Well yeah, of course he's a racist slimeball, but ...."

It's pretty clear to most people where you're headed.

Really? Where am I headed? Am I headed to calling Ichi-san and Pkr "the GOP"?

Guest


Guest

Lol... ya I'm mainstream gop.

I'm the sort that gives that sort a bad name.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Your premise is flawed... but you knew that... or at worst now know it. Perhaps salon or kos or nation can help.


The premise is that in Scenario A, GOP supporters were not concerned with the fact that the story originated from illegally obtained information. In Scenario B, the fact that the story originated from illegally obtained information is the main story itself.

OK, so that is the premise. How is that flawed?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You started the thread, with the accusation about the GOP.
Even the defenders of free speech aren't defending Sterling's words.   I think everyone pretty much agrees that he's a sleazy, racist slimeball.  


I started this thread so that I could ask GOP supporters to reconcile their reactions to two stories.  What am I asking them to reconcile specifically?  The weight that they give to a detail such as how the information that broke each story was obtained.  

In one scenario, the way the information was obtained was irrelevant.  In the other story, it is the only thing that matters.

The entire point of this thread is to ask GOP supporters to explain how that works.   I can't state this any simpler at this point.

Once again, some of the most adamant defenders of free speech on that Sterling thread are not known on the forum to be the GOP or GOP supporters.  If a couple of liberal posters and a couple of conservative posters make similar comments on a subject, I don't jump to the conclusion that "the DNC" supports that stance, while ignoring what the conservative posters said.


Trust me, if I had the ability to read this thread for you so that you would understand it, I would. But since I can't do that, my response to you is simply, "OK then. Good point, Nekochan."

(moving on)


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Lol... ya I'm mainstream gop.

I'm the sort that gives that sort a bad name.



PkrBum. Let's put this thread aside for a second. I have a question for you. What is your view on the Climategate story?


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:You started the thread, with the accusation about the GOP.
Even the defenders of free speech aren't defending Sterling's words.   I think everyone pretty much agrees that he's a sleazy, racist slimeball.  


I started this thread so that I could ask GOP supporters to reconcile their reactions to two stories.  What am I asking them to reconcile specifically?  The weight that they give to a detail such as how the information that broke each story was obtained.  

In one scenario, the way the information was obtained was irrelevant.  In the other story, it is the only thing that matters.

The entire point of this thread is to ask GOP supporters to explain how that works.   I can't state this any simpler at this point.

Once again, some of the most adamant defenders of free speech on that Sterling thread are not known on the forum to be the GOP or GOP supporters.  If a couple of liberal posters and a couple of conservative posters make similar comments on a subject, I don't jump to the conclusion that "the DNC" supports that stance, while ignoring what the conservative posters said.


Trust me, if I had the ability to read this thread for you so that you would understand  it, I would.  But since I can't do that, my response to you is simply, "OK then.  Good point, Nekochan."

(moving on)

Even through your condescending dodge of the facts, I understand the thread just fine.
Time will tell about the climate change issue. But your "GOP" is supporting Sterling claim is just wrong.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:Even through your condescending dodge of the facts, I understand the thread just fine.  
Time will tell about the climate change issue.  But your "GOP" is supporting Sterling claim is just wrong.


Forget the "GOP supports Sterling" claim for a second because that isn't the point and it has nothing to do with the question that I am asking.  I never even said as much.  So, again, let's completely forget about the "GOP supports Sterling" idea.  OK?  I want to confirm with you that we are both on the same page that we are forgetting the "GOP supports Sterling" idea before I go on here.  I'll await your conformation before moving forward.


Actually, I'll state this again because I still feel it may not have sunken in with you.  I would like for us to move past this "The GOP supports Sterling" idea.  I'm not saying that the GOP supports Sterling.  You're not saying that the GOP supports Sterling.  Let's move forward in agreement that the GOP does not support Sterling.   How about that?

Let me know when you have digested all that, and then I'll continue.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Boards posted in his first post:

GOP has no interest in any consequences for Sterling or any question of his character, and instead looks to him as a victim.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Lol... ya I'm mainstream gop.

I'm the sort that gives that sort a bad name.



PkrBum. Let's put this thread aside for a second. I have a question for you. What is your view on the Climategate story?

I think that science should be largely transparent... that models as far reaching and conclusive must be replicable and peer reviewed... and that those emails clearly show the contrary. A is whistleblowing and might be illegal... B might be illegal... both can be considered unethical such as with manning or snowden... but the result should be the same consequence. Your ilk ignores the emails and doesn't care what the means are to an ends.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:Boards posted in his first post:

GOP has no interest in any consequences for Sterling or any question of his character, and instead looks to him as a victim.



Ah. You got me there. Clearly I was saying "The GOP supports Sterling" with that one. I completely see now that I have misled you terribly. That is completely my bad.

Now, with that said, do you think you're ready to move past the "GOP supports Sterling" thing, or do you need more time?

You see, the point isn't and has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that the GOP supports Sterling. So if you truly want to grasp what this thread is about, you will first need to move past that concept and instead focus on the actual subject of the thread.

Think about it some more. Mull it over. Whatever you have to do. Whenever you're ready, let me know and I'll continue.




_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Two scenarios. Same underlying cause. Different GOP reaction.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum