First of all, I didn't realize you posted between me and Mikey. So, that wasn't a response to you, it was a response to him. Normally I check to make sure my post followed the one that preceded it, so I can go back and quote the other poster, but I guess I didn't check this time. My bad. Let me go back and address your post.

Before we begin, I would like you to link me the DHS mandate to which you are referring. Specifically, if you can, the order that outlines what the mandate entails.

It is the entire topic of the thread. 
The one Jim Jordan is whining about in the article from the original post.  
You want me to research it for you?  
LOL
no

---

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/132...09441?s=20

Here's the tweet. It was definitely not true. Like most things Trump, his post was hyperbolic and, therefore, inaccurate. However, my point is that it was done without his knowledge coming from his own agencies, which is why I referenced it. His agencies definitely did things without his knowledge.

... which speaks volumes to his ineptitude.

Huh. Shouldn't take you that long, right? I mean, you were just HAHAHAing about it 2 posts ago. Provide me the information in the DHS mandate from Trump that you were referring to, please. I bet you can't. 

As to ineptitude, assuming you are referencing his agencies and not his hyperbole, are you even remotely aware the size and scope of government. It would be impossible for any President to be fully aware of everything that's happening in his departments. Period. Biden didn't do it. Obama didn't do it. Nobody can do it. These agencies are huge. 

I am 20 pages into the disinformation report that I'm sure you haven't read. I put that down for a bit to read more on the EIP. This was NOT approved by Trump, but administration attorneys. That means that the general counsel of the DHS or CISA signed off on this partnership. I can't even find out the specific people who approved it, because that information is not released. Those attorneys are not appointed by Trump, but by the director of DHS or CISA. You can confirm this by visiting the EIP site and reading about it if you want, but I gave you the relevant info. I'm not even convinced they've done anything wrong at this point (other than their own bias, which always exists in spades at universities), but I still have 80 pages to go, so that could change. 

The CISA was a congressional act to protect against cybersecurity threats in 2018. Read this [BLEEP]:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-cong.../3359/text

Seriously, if you can make it through a page of that without getting frustrated, I'll buy you a beer. You think Trump is reading that? You think our congress is reading that? You think that was written for the people? Well, been sludging through that, too. No where in there is this department commissioned to protect against misinformation or disinformation. The DHS, at least under the Trump administration, had no authority to regulate domestic misinformation or disinformation. 

So, just so were clear, a department that wasn't assigned to safeguard against misinformation and disinformation, formed a partnership with a private agency of its own volition. It wasn't approved by congress. It didn't go through Trump. It then coordinated with EIP to verify information and send that to social media companies to flagged as misinformation or disinformation. Not only that, but students from Stanford also worked at both CISA and the EIP simultaneously. According to the report, this resulted in a disproportionate disparity between political ideology, where satire and true information was regularly flagged.

---

OK, let's try this again. Trump was clearly frustrated being censored by Twitter, right? So, he made an EO that he thought would curb their censoring of him. He sued them. He constantly spoke about it in public. IF Trump knew that the DHS was the one flagging his tweets, do you think he would have stopped it? Yes or no?

I think he would have made another angry tweet about it, and he would have been unable to give a clear, lawful order regarding the behavior. So he would have tried, and failed, to stop it.

I agree with you. But he didn't, did he. Meaning what, most likely?

---

Meaning he probably didn't know that federal workers were doing these things. Meaning he's incompetent.
But really
We're talking about a guy who said something indisputably, laughably, dangerously false on social media, and it was tagged as false and demoted. Low level people in the organization he was in charge of for asked for it to be flagged. And he had no idea these employees did that. But you think he's the victim?! No! Every step in the story is him doing something wrong!
He shouldn't have lied.
He should know what his employees are doing.
He should expect his employees to tell the truth. If it was a disputable statement, maybe true maybe false, he should expect his employees to take his side. But when it's indisputably false? No! He should expect his employees to correct him!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That is such an oversimplification. For a guy that pines to be nuanced, you need to acknowledge that the government apparatus can and does function at times independent from appropriate oversight. This isn't about what Trump said. It's about policing unelected bureaucracies and protecting individual freedom. There is literally no way to enforce unbiased misinformation and disinformation and the government should be playing no part in it, at least domestically. Personally, I don't really care what they censor that comes from outside sources, provided it's verifiable and transparent. Although the truth is most people blathering about Russian disinformation are woefully underinformed.

---

That is such an oversimplification. For a guy that pines to be nuanced, you need to acknowledge that the government apparatus can and does function at times independent from appropriate oversight. This isn't about what Trump said. It's about policing unelected bureaucracies and protecting individual freedom. There is literally no way to enforce unbiased misinformation and disinformation and the government should be playing no part in it, at least domestically. Personally, I don't really care what they censor that comes from outside sources, provided it's verifiable and transparent. Although the truth is most people blathering about Russian disinformation are woefully underinformed.

Their hatred for Trump is so great they just can’t see it or just don’t care.  The end justifies the means.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

That is such an oversimplification. For a guy that pines to be nuanced, you need to acknowledge that the government apparatus can and does function at times independent from appropriate oversight. This isn't about what Trump said. It's about policing unelected bureaucracies and protecting individual freedom. There is literally no way to enforce unbiased misinformation and disinformation and the government should be playing no part in it, at least domestically. Personally, I don't really care what they censor that comes from outside sources, provided it's verifiable and transparent. Although the truth is most people blathering about Russian disinformation are woefully underinformed.

I have personally experienced government administrators going beyond their charge and making my life difficult.  I literally lose days of work when it happens.  They are independent humans.  They want to feel important.  You can't legislate that away.  A society that allows people, including government employees, to do what they think is right while they do their jobs, is better than one that tries to integrate people into a hive mind.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That is such an oversimplification. For a guy that pines to be nuanced, you need to acknowledge that the government apparatus can and does function at times independent from appropriate oversight. This isn't about what Trump said. It's about policing unelected bureaucracies and protecting individual freedom. There is literally no way to enforce unbiased misinformation and disinformation and the government should be playing no part in it, at least domestically. Personally, I don't really care what they censor that comes from outside sources, provided it's verifiable and transparent. Although the truth is most people blathering about Russian disinformation are woefully underinformed.

I have personally experienced government administrators going beyond their charge and making my life difficult.  I literally lose days of work when it happens.  They are independent humans.  They want to feel important.  You can't legislate that away.  A society that allows people, including government employees, to do what they think is right while they do their jobs, is better than one that tries to integrate people into a hive mind.

Huh... are you incompetent when people do what they shouldn't. This is your default assumption with Trump, but you give yourself grace. Furthermore, you find yourself in solidarity with a group that went beyond the scope of their jobs and censored objectively true statements and obvious parody that disenfranchises your "fellow" conservatives. You attack the one and defend the other. Not only that, but every director from the Trump administration also denies implementing this policy. Just saying, Mikey, you should be less dogmatic about your starting positions. It's ok for us to push back against the government. 

I feel like that line of debate is relatively wrapped up, don't you? Now I'll just sit and wait for NYC to post that DHS mandate.

---

I have personally experienced government administrators going beyond their charge and making my life difficult.  I literally lose days of work when it happens.  They are independent humans.  They want to feel important.  You can't legislate that away.  A society that allows people, including government employees, to do what they think is right while they do their jobs, is better than one that tries to integrate people into a hive mind.

Huh... are you incompetent when people do what they shouldn't. This is your default assumption with Trump, but you give yourself grace. Furthermore, you find yourself in solidarity with a group that went beyond the scope of their jobs and censored objectively true statements and obvious parody that disenfranchises your "fellow" conservatives. You attack the one and defend the other. Not only that, but every director from the Trump administration also denies implementing this policy. Just saying, Mikey, you should be less dogmatic about your starting positions. It's ok for us to push back against the government. 

I feel like that line of debate is relatively wrapped up, don't you? Now I'll just sit and wait for NYC to post that DHS mandate.

I'm not in charge of any government workers.  This whole thread is preposterous.  Some of what I'm saying, I'm just trying to point out how absurd it is that we're even talking about this. At some point you were supposed to catch that.  Multiple times I mentioned the absence of lawful and clear orders from Trump on this.  But think that through.  "I order all federal government employees not to contact social media moderators for any reason, even if they contact you." This is lawful and clear on its face, but, each of these workers have private lives.  Many of them had personal Twitter accounts and professional ones.  Trump would have been rightly ridiculed for making such an order. Biden would too, if he did.  Let it go.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Man, that's a lot of misinformation in one post.

---

It is the entire topic of the thread. 
The one Jim Jordan is whining about in the article from the original post.  
You want me to research it for you?  
LOL
no

---

... which speaks volumes to his ineptitude.

Huh. Shouldn't take you that long, right? I mean, you were just HAHAHAing about it 2 posts ago. Provide me the information in the DHS mandate from Trump that you were referring to, please. I bet you can't. 

As to ineptitude, assuming you are referencing his agencies and not his hyperbole, are you even remotely aware the size and scope of government. It would be impossible for any President to be fully aware of everything that's happening in his departments. Period. Biden didn't do it. Obama didn't do it. Nobody can do it. These agencies are huge. 

I am 20 pages into the disinformation report that I'm sure you haven't read. I put that down for a bit to read more on the EIP. This was NOT approved by Trump, but administration attorneys. That means that the general counsel of the DHS or CISA signed off on this partnership. I can't even find out the specific people who approved it, because that information is not released. Those attorneys are not appointed by Trump, but by the director of DHS or CISA. You can confirm this by visiting the EIP site and reading about it if you want, but I gave you the relevant info. I'm not even convinced they've done anything wrong at this point (other than their own bias, which always exists in spades at universities), but I still have 80 pages to go, so that could change. 

The CISA was a congressional act to protect against cybersecurity threats in 2018. Read this [BLEEP]:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-cong.../3359/text

Seriously, if you can make it through a page of that without getting frustrated, I'll buy you a beer. You think Trump is reading that? You think our congress is reading that? You think that was written for the people? Well, been sludging through that, too. No where in there is this department commissioned to protect against misinformation or disinformation. The DHS, at least under the Trump administration, had no authority to regulate domestic misinformation or disinformation. 

So, just so were clear, a department that wasn't assigned to safeguard against misinformation and disinformation, formed a partnership with a private agency of its own volition. It wasn't approved by congress. It didn't go through Trump. It then coordinated with EIP to verify information and send that to social media companies to flagged as misinformation or disinformation. Not only that, but students from Stanford also worked at both CISA and the EIP simultaneously. According to the report, this resulted in a disproportionate disparity between political ideology, where satire and true information was regularly flagged.

---

I think he would have made another angry tweet about it, and he would have been unable to give a clear, lawful order regarding the behavior. So he would have tried, and failed, to stop it.

I agree with you. But he didn't, did he. Meaning what, most likely?

LOL

Hilarious.

But typical. 

You have no defense for Trump being too stupid to realize an agency he controls was screwing with his own disinformation campaign. 

BuT He DIDn'TKnoW!! No oNe CouLd HavE KnowN!! 

No.That's garbage.  It was ALL over the news in 2018 and 2019. And we know the orange clown watches the news because he tweeted lies about everything they reported that upset him constantly. You are weakly trying to spin this into some scenario where his ignorance and ineptitude excuse him from being ignorant and inept. 

It's pretty funny. 

Enjoy the light reading. I won't bother clicking your link. My position is unscathed no matter what you dig up. 

This [BLEEP] is simple:

• Jordan and the other idiots from the article in the OP are just whining because their lies were censored "Oh NOEZ - They aren't letting me lie to Americans enough!!" LOL
  
• Now in hindsight - they've finally connected enough dots to realize the clown in chief probably could have done something to exclude them (and himself) from the initially intended propaganda censorship. Even though the deleted posts were 100% justified. 
  
• So - all they are doing is moaning about not being able to lie while implicating the ineptitude of their little cult leader who mistakenly let something good happen on his watch
  

I don't give a [BLEEP] why he didn't know that the DHS had implemented this effort to curb election interference and disinformation. Doesn't matter one iota. It happened on his watch and it was in response to an issue made prominent in the news cycle. That's on him no matter how you want to scurry around defending his ignorance. 
The moron doesn't know what countries border Russia. Why would I be surprised he didn't keep tabs on propaganda policy affecting an election he was trying to win?? 

That's another fun one for you to spin. He was running for re-election and you want to excuse him for being ignorant about his own gov't agencies controlling campaign disinformation. 

Trying to defend this is truly tilting at a windmill. I have no clue why you'd bother.

---

Nice post, laughing boy. When you gonna answer my question? You laugh at me for not knowing about the "DHS mandate," that you can't even prove existed. You just gonna let that slide?

Your whole stick is confidently asserting yourself. Your position is "unscathed" in your head because you can't acknowledge your own limitations of knowledge. Even your bulleted examples are made up. There are verifiably true tweets that were taken down. Satire was taken down. Trump didn't know about it (most likely). His department heads say they didn't know about it. You just have a world view you believe is 100% true, and your incapable of removing yourself from your dogmatism. You can't prove a single one of your points. Not one. It's why you lol so much.

It's ONLY because this falls on your side of the political spectrum that you don't see a problem with it. That's your bias issue. Not mine.

---

Nice post, laughing boy. When you gonna answer my question? You laugh at me for not knowing about the "DHS mandate," that you can't even prove existed. You just gonna let that slide?

Your whole stick is confidently asserting yourself. Your position is "unscathed" in your head because you can't acknowledge your own limitations of knowledge. Even your bulleted examples are made up. There are verifiably true tweets that were taken down. Satire was taken down. Trump didn't know about it (most likely). His department heads say they didn't know about it. You just have a world view you believe is 100% true, and your incapable of removing yourself from your dogmatism. You can't prove a single one of your points. Not one. It's why you lol so much.

It's ONLY because this falls on your side of the political spectrum that you don't see a problem with it. That's your bias issue. Not mine.

You're too far gone.
This is politics, not geometry.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm not gone, you dolt. Once again, the leftists project. I have no problem with disagreement. None whatsoever. I have a problem when people can ONLY interpret data through their skewed lens. If someone "thinks" something or "believes" something, I am comfortable engaging on the topic and staying at a point of disagreement. If a person knows something so certainly that they can laugh at another person, then [BLEEP] prove it. Oh, you can't? Then get off your [BLEEP] high horse. It's that simple.

He's asserting his opinions as fact, while lol'ing and haha'ing up down this thread like anyone else's suggestions are invalid. I am giving good reasoning for my positions, because I UNDERSTAND that there is a group of people that think differently than me and are looking at this from a different perspective. My attempts to debate are in good faith for the purpose of finding common ground. That doesn't mean there's always common ground. I've given good reasons why Trump didn't know, including what he used in his last post: That Trump DIDN'T tweet about it, and no President is fully capable of managing everything in our bloated, bureaucratic government, AND his department heads say THEY didn't know about it. If he wants to believe it anyways, go ahead, but don't assert your opinion like it's the one true way. The entirety of the left gets away with this on the regular, and I will ALWAYS object to it.

I'm reading through 100 pages of a report none of you turds bothered to read, yet you all comment on it like we're on equal footing. We aren't. If you aren't going to read it, or the laws that are being passed or trying to understand how complicated the government is, that's fine. I don't care. Don't come at me like you [BLEEP] know something. HAHAing about a mandate you have never seen and can't prove exists might be the dumbest thing ever. The DHS under Trump had ZERO authority to create a misinformation and disinformation department for American citizens.

---

Nice post, laughing boy. When you gonna answer my question? You laugh at me for not knowing about the "DHS mandate," that you can't even prove existed. You just gonna let that slide?

Your whole stick is confidently asserting yourself. Your position is "unscathed" in your head because you can't acknowledge your own limitations of knowledge. Even your bulleted examples are made up. There are verifiably true tweets that were taken down. Satire was taken down. Trump didn't know about it (most likely). His department heads say they didn't know about it. You just have a world view you believe is 100% true, and your incapable of removing yourself from your dogmatism. You can't prove a single one of your points. Not one. It's why you lol so much.

It's ONLY because this falls on your side of the political spectrum that you don't see a problem with it. That's your bias issue. Not mine.

What? 
I don't need to prove anything existed. It's obvious. 

The DHS didn't just go about forming a censorship panel at Stanford University out of thin air. 
Someone instructed (ordered? mandated?) them to do that. 

How is that you think that the DHS suddenly got involved in social media factchecking? 

I assume that you getting hung up on this irrelevant detail here is one of your typical deflections. 
I'm not interested in whatever it is you are selling down at the flea market on Deflection Street. 

My actual point:
The DHS were set onto the project (mandated in some way - doesn't matter how)  - and it happened under Trump - so he was either ignorant of it or inept in controlling it. Both of which are damning. Take your pick. 

The other point I've made is that the project was justified even if not properly handled and executed in every facet. 

So yeah - that part remains unscathed. 
Sorry, I just got a chuckle out of all that stuff you dug up to try to defend Trump's ignorance of his own government agency censoring his lies. It's just funny to me. I apologize.

---

No. It's not obvious. Conservatives have been saying for YEARS that the state departments are becoming political. Personally, I think they've always been political. However, the politics have changed enough to upset the balance that had been there previously. Some people want to believe this is malicious, but I think it's beyond that. Minus the natural hiring and promoting bias that has been shown in studies to be true of the left, I think most of this is a natural result of government bloat, which is more in line with progressive ideology. Couple that with entrenched, unelected bureaucrats and the shifting influence of corporations that are increasingly identifying with the left, and you have a recipe for agencies within departments that can and do function in their own interests.

None of this should be debatable (though I'm sure Mikey will find a way). I only bring it up because if the state departments do not share values with their commander-in-chief, you will see rogue behavior. I don't think it's possible to police this without a top-down structure that is working in unison. That's just not happening in DC. When you do see it (or think you see it), I think it's more because the President is in line with the establishment apparatus than it is that the departments are bending to the President's will. For example, Chuck Schumer specifically talked about this with regards to Trump. He said, "“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Why'd he say that if these departments function at the discretion of the President? You don't find that odd?

I realize that's a bit of a digression, but it's all context setting the stage for the battle between Trump and his internal agencies. It also roundaboutly addresses why a misinformation and disinformation board is dangerous politically, especially for conservatives.

Back to the topic: Can you tell me who approved the partnership with the EIP? I can't. I spent hours looking for that specific information the other day and the closest I got was Trump's administration attorneys (keep in mind that there are many, many administration attorneys for each department). Again, the acting DHS department head and deputy director of the DHS vehemently deny doing any operations like this that were approved by Trump. They said they ONLY had permission to address foreign misinformation and disinformation and not anything domestic.

Wolf responded after the Biden White House said this program started under the Trump administration: ""WH wrong again. New DHS Disinfo Board is not the same as efforts during the Trump Admin," he tweeted. "We focused primarily on foreign influence in elections — not domestic speech. New Board is located in the Secretary's office and has much broader authority than anything under CISA authorities." He added in a later statement that the creation of the board is likely an abuse of authority by DHS: "There is no operational reason to take this responsibility from largely non-political operating components and move this mission to the secretary’s office filled with political appointees, including a politically charged individual with no government experience," he said, referring to the board's recently named director, Nina Jankowicz. "The move represents a further politicization of the department under this administration."

Now, he DID mention a DHS mandate authorized by Trump in 2019 to fight FOREIGN disinformation but said any attempt to police citizens is an abuse of the authority of that department. He also called for the DHS to release the charter that outlines the roles of DHS, but it hasn't been done. I looked for it.

This information does not line up with what you claim.

---

No. It's not obvious. Conservatives have been saying for YEARS that the state departments are becoming political. Personally, I think they've always been political. However, the politics have changed enough to upset the balance that had been there previously. Some people want to believe this is malicious, but I think it's beyond that. Minus the natural hiring and promoting bias that has been shown in studies to be true of the left, I think most of this is a natural result of government bloat, which is more in line with progressive ideology. Couple that with entrenched, unelected bureaucrats and the shifting influence of corporations that are increasingly identifying with the left, and you have a recipe for agencies within departments that can and do function in their own interests.

None of this should be debatable (though I'm sure Mikey will find a way). I only bring it up because if the state departments do not share values with their commander-in-chief, you will see rogue behavior. I don't think it's possible to police this without a top-down structure that is working in unison. That's just not happening in DC. When you do see it (or think you see it), I think it's more because the President is in line with the establishment apparatus than it is that the departments are bending to the President's will. For example, Chuck Schumer specifically talked about this with regards to Trump. He said, "“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Why'd he say that if these departments function at the discretion of the President? You don't find that odd?

I realize that's a bit of a digression, but it's all context setting the stage for the battle between Trump and his internal agencies. It also roundaboutly addresses why a misinformation and disinformation board is dangerous politically, especially for conservatives.

Back to the topic: Can you tell me who approved the partnership with the EIP? I can't. I spent hours looking for that specific information the other day and the closest I got was Trump's administration attorneys (keep in mind that there are many, many administration attorneys for each department). Again, the acting DHS department head and deputy director of the DHS vehemently deny doing any operations like this that were approved by Trump. They said they ONLY had permission to address foreign misinformation and disinformation and not anything domestic.

Wolf responded after the Biden White House said this program started under the Trump administration: ""WH wrong again. New DHS Disinfo Board is not the same as efforts during the Trump Admin," he tweeted. "We focused primarily on foreign influence in elections — not domestic speech. New Board is located in the Secretary's office and has much broader authority than anything under CISA authorities." He added in a later statement that the creation of the board is likely an abuse of authority by DHS: "There is no operational reason to take this responsibility from largely non-political operating components and move this mission to the secretary’s office filled with political appointees, including a politically charged individual with no government experience," he said, referring to the board's recently named director, Nina Jankowicz. "The move represents a further politicization of the department under this administration."

Now, he DID mention a DHS mandate authorized by Trump in 2019 to fight FOREIGN disinformation but said any attempt to police citizens is an abuse of the authority of that department. He also called for the DHS to release the charter that outlines the roles of DHS, but it hasn't been done. I looked for it.

This information does not line up with what you claim.

Deflection Street still sucks. 

I don't know who turned the DHS onto their censorship project and I don't care. 

It was a worthwhile mission that suffered some hiccups.

Big deal. 

Now - to the bolded. It's adorable when you accuse me of something (needlessly BTW) with your wanna-be Dr.Phil dimestore psych analysis and then do the same thing in your next post. Thanks for the laugh. Again.

---

I'm going to need Dr. Phil to figure out how you turned the bolded into an attack on you. You ok, bro? That statement is just a reiteration that the information I provided in the previous paragraph is pretty well established.

Btw, that's a neat new saying you have there.... deflection street. It's a cool way to not have to adjust your worldview or address any of the statements I am using to support my argument, even though everything is relevant in some way to the point at hand. Is deflection anything you don't care about?

There are many people who do think it's a big deal, and I think you'd be able to see it if that power was able to be wielded against you. You are not even remotely trying to be objective. It works for you. Noted. That's a great way to government. /sarcasm

---

I'm going to need Dr. Phil to figure out how you turned the bolded into an attack on you. You ok, bro? That statement is just a reiteration that the information I provided in the previous paragraph is pretty well established.

Btw, that's a neat new saying you have there.... deflection street. It's a cool way to not have to adjust your worldview or address any of the statements I am using to support my argument, even though everything is relevant in some way to the point at hand. Is deflection anything you don't care about?

There are many people who do think it's a big deal, and I think you'd be able to see it if that power was able to be wielded against you. You are not even remotely trying to be objective. It works for you. Noted. That's a great way to government. /sarcasm

Sorry you couldn't connect the dots.

I'll help you out. 

You tried to characterize my posting with some of your herpy-derpy Dr Phil tripe in post 50 only to turn around and do what you were trying to accuse me of in post 54. 

Also - why in the hell does your left turn tangent tendency have a thing to do with my worldview? 
It is crazy how seriously you take your posts. Worldview?? Really?? 
It's a political side forum on a football message board. And you have the audacity to presume you have your head around my worldview. That [BLEEP] is hilariously pompous.  

LOL

C'mon man. Do you seriously not see your pattern of deflection by focusing on minute details completely sidebar to the original topic?? 

You do it a lot. 

It's like those roaches scurrying away when you flip on the light. You rush off to some peripheral detail to get lost in when the original debate isn't going your way.

---

You have a worldview. We all do.

Are you suggesting that because I stated that the information I posted in the first paragraph shouldn't be debatable (because it is well documented), that I am doing what I accuse you of doing? Look at your last post? Where is there any content? When I say you confidently assert yourself, it's "I'm right, you're wrong." You have literally brought up your own opinion of yourself as evidence you are pwning me on a "political side forum on a football message board." You're the ChrisJagBoy of the political forum.

C'mon man. Do you seriously not see your pattern of deflection by focusing on minute details completely sidebar to the original topic??

You do it a lot.

It's like those roaches scurrying away when you flip on the light. You rush off to some peripheral detail to get lost in when the original debate isn't going your way.

Just because you don't care about context, doesn't make it any less important. It's your disregard for these types of details that makes you less informed and less objective, imo, but you do you.

Oh, by the way, do you notice how when you try to psychoanalyze me, I try to point out why you're getting it wrong. I do that for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not a whiny little [BLEEP], and secondly because I'm ok with strangers trying to figure out motivations. Unless you're an algorithm that's programmed to post stupid [BLEEP], you're probably trying to figure out the motives and reasoning when you're debating with other posters. You're not special in this regard, but, hey, way to confidently assert yourself. 

I hope anyone that takes you seriously can look at your last post and see them for what you suggest they are, posts on a football message board that are void of context and shouldn't be taken seriously.

---

https://media.tenor.com/HGblO7DfAN0AAAAC/what-hmm.gif

You have a worldview. We all do.

Are you suggesting that because I stated that the information I posted in the first paragraph shouldn't be debatable (because it is well documented), that I am doing what I accuse you of doing? Look at your last post? Where is there any content? When I say you confidently assert yourself, it's "I'm right, you're wrong." You have literally brought up your own opinion of yourself as evidence you are pwning me on a "political side forum on a football message board." You're the ChrisJagBoy of the political forum.

C'mon man. Do you seriously not see your pattern of deflection by focusing on minute details completely sidebar to the original topic??

You do it a lot.

It's like those roaches scurrying away when you flip on the light. You rush off to some peripheral detail to get lost in when the original debate isn't going your way.

Just because you don't care about context, doesn't make it any less important. It's your disregard for these types of details that makes you less informed and less objective, imo, but you do you.

Oh, by the way, do you notice how when you try to psychoanalyze me, I try to point out why you're getting it wrong. I do that for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not a whiny little [BLEEP], and secondly because I'm ok with strangers trying to figure out motivations. Unless you're an algorithm that's programmed to post stupid [BLEEP], you're probably trying to figure out the motives and reasoning when you're debating with other posters. You're not special in this regard, but, hey, way to confidently assert yourself. 

I hope anyone that takes you seriously can look at your last post and see them for what you suggest they are, posts on a football message board that are void of context and shouldn't be taken seriously.

---

You have a worldview. We all do.
NO [BLEEP]. I'm saying it's laughable (insane really) that you think you can analyze and define mine from posts on a MB. 
Are you suggesting that because I stated that the information I posted in the first paragraph shouldn't be debatable (because it is well documented), that I am doing what I accuse you of doing?
I think I clearly said you were doing what you are accusing me of.

AND NO - you stated plenty of opinion and then claimed it shouldn't be debatable - look:

No. It's not obvious. Conservatives have been saying for YEARS that the state departments are becoming political. Personally, I think they've always been political. However, the politics have changed enough to upset the balance that had been there previously. Some people want to believe this is malicious, but I think it's beyond that. Minus the natural hiring and promoting bias that has been shown in studies to be true of the left, I think most of this is a natural result of government bloat, which is more in line with progressive ideology. Couple that with entrenched, unelected bureaucrats and the shifting influence of corporations that are increasingly identifying with the left, and you have a recipe for agencies within departments that can and do function in their own interests.

Look at your last post? Where is there any content? When I say you confidently assert yourself, it's "I'm right, you're wrong." You have literally brought up your own opinion of yourself as evidence you are pwning me on a "political side forum on a football message board." That is so horribly misted you should be ashamed.  You're the ChrisJagBoy of the political forum. Then you really should be ashamed!

C'mon man. Do you seriously not see your pattern of deflection by focusing on minute details completely sidebar to the original topic??

You do it a lot.

It's like those roaches scurrying away when you flip on the light. You rush off to some peripheral detail to get lost in when the original debate isn't going your way.

Just because you don't care about context, doesn't make it any less important. It's your disregard for these types of details that makes you less informed and less objective, imo, but you do you.
Riiiiiight, I don't fall for some sidebar deflection bull [BLEEP] - so I don't care about context. 
Not my fault you if you can't get your head around the concept of relevancy. 

Oh, by the way, do you notice how when you try to psychoanalyze me, I try to point out why you're getting it wrong. I do that for two reasons.
I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you. 
I'm commenting on your posting tendencies. 
I don't need to know what exact brand of crazy you are. None of us are perfect. 

Firstly, I'm not a whiny little [BLEEP], and secondly because I'm ok with strangers trying to figure out motivations. Unless you're an algorithm that's programmed to post stupid [BLEEP], you're probably trying to figure out the motives and reasoning when you're debating with other posters. You're not special in this regard, but, hey, way to confidently assert yourself. 
Yeah - I'm afraid I don't waste my time trying to "figure out" the motives of folks who post things on the internet. 
Sorry that seems unbelievable to you. 
Most people are stupid. I don't worry too much about that. 

I hope anyone that takes you seriously can look at your last post and see them for what you suggest they are, posts on a football message board that are void of context and shouldn't be taken seriously.

No - none of this [BLEEP] should be taken seriously. Thought that was obvious. 

Clearly not for you. 

 I need to stop being such a jerk in my response to your posts because you seem to be getting more upset than I anticipated. 

I sort of enjoyed unloading on you because you talk down to folks so often and unnecessarily attack Mike all the time, but I don't want to keep derailing threads with personal [BLEEP] - and you are clearly too weak to take from me the crap you dish to Mike. You should consider that last bit moving forward if you really are not a whiny little [BLEEP] as you claim.

---