Archy1221

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not sure why his stupidity about going to fancy dinners has anything to do with it.

But, if it were me, I would think someone should appoint another person in line with the person the people voted in.  So, if Harris were a Republican, I would try to find a Republican that I could appoint.  She happens to be a Democrat ( a very popular Democrat) so, I would try to find a Democrat that I could appoint.

However, I do understand that doing that would be much harder for a partisan person.  Since I'm an independent and not tied to a party....it's a pretty simple thought process for me.

 

Why should a governor of one state have the power to possibly swing the power in the US Senate because he's replacing a very popular Senator that was just elected with 80 million votes to be the next VP.   That's one hell of a lot of power to put in one person's hands.

Very well said.  I‘m not registered Independent but I have voted for Democrats in down ballot races before.  I have to admit that I would replace any Democrat Senator with a good Republican  Senator if given the choice. it was hypothetical and I will never get that chance.

you do bring up a very interesting point though.  Has a Governor of one party ever appointed a Senator of another party?  If so, I wonder if the Governor ran for re-election after and what happened if they did.  It is an interesting scenario for sure 

Look at us being peaceful to each other    

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Am I being as polite as someone calling another poster a liar?

Well when they lie I guess that makes them a liar.  What would you have me call them?  Misstruth teller?  Purposely mistaken? 

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK...why would you replace Harris with someone from the other party?

Because if I were Gavin Newsome I would first avoid fancy indoor dinners with large groups and then appoint competent people with rational ideas.  That leaves out most Democrats, especially those from CA.  Which leads me to Issa.   Or maybe Arnold (just kidding). 

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when you complained that people were snarky. BigRedBuster isn't being snarky to you. He's being very polite. 

 

He was not and you know it.  Good effort though. 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why should a governor replace Harris with someone from a different party?

Didn’t say they should, the question was asked “if you were Gavin Newsome” hence my response 

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I've never said you lied about anything.

 

To be a lie, you have to actually understand what you're saying is BS.  I don't think you realize that yet.

Ahhhh, there goes the qualifier statement.  I still will accept that as an apology as I know it’s gotta be hard for you.   Thank you! 

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

@Archy1221  Adam Schiff steal your girlfriend or something?

 

I don’t know.  Let’s see if she comes over for Thanksgiving.  If he did then my wife will be happy.   

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

Source

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't believe you're lying.  I think you fully believe the BS Trump and his ilk are feeding you.

Thank you, admitting I don’t lie wasn’t too hard, was it.

if you want to know I believe about anything, just ask and I will tell you.  You don’t have to think or mind read at all

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I watched 9 minutes of this and couldn't handle any more.  What a total bunch of BS that people like @Archy1221 and @Notre Dame Joe are going to eat up and contribute to the tearing down of our democracy.  

Bulls#!t @BigRedBuster  Maybe stop being a troll.  
I have already said Trump lost, I haven’t agreed with Trump on this nonsense.   I only posted two things about post election.  It was on the anomaly of 2020 rejection rates for mail in ballots compared to previous elections including the 2020 primaries. 
 

I also said he has the legal right to challenge an election, but he better have evidence if he does otherwise it’s harmful.   
 

Apology will be accepted at any time.  

2 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

I'm no longer in a cult.  I was in one.  Sorry you think my example had no bearing to the conversation.  It was allegory and meant to draw parallels in a simplistic way you could see it.  (edit:  Also wanted to mention I've had years upon years of therapy already after leaving the cult, thanks for your concern!)

 

FYI, I'm not angry at all..I feel pity for you thinking you've got all the answers and we're nothing but liars.  It's how I felt when I was a cult member...everyone else were liars and I had the truth.

 

I've built not a single strawman...I haven't done any gaslighting of you at all...I've questioned your evidence you presented...which is something even YOU admitted it wasn't up to par.

 

My last post was meant to have you question your own intentions with what you post.  You're posts are not swaying anyone to your 'truth'.  That's the benefit of being able to see things with evidence...if there is a mountain of evidence that is stacked against you...you need a mountain of evidence to tip the scales in the other direction.

 

Your mountain is a mole hill and you're trying to convince us all without evidence that it's a mountain.

 

That's not how proof/evidence, logic, and debate works.

How about this:  Multiple subjects have been brought up in the course of this thread.  Let’s take one at a time and see if we can get somewhere.  Let’s start with my comment to @knapplc about Adam Schiff lying to American Public about the Russia Investigation.   
 

Quite  me where I am wrong in my ‘truth’. What evidence is stacked against me?  
 

He says Schiff has been truthful.  He says the IG report is actually Barr’s report.  He insinuates the IG is not non-partisan.  He puts into evidence two articles from 2018 that pre-date the internal investigation that shows his articles are trash.  
 

I have claimed and cited that Schiff lied about the FISA abuse which is a very big thing in the whole Russia ordeal.  
 

Your move.  I will be anxiously awaiting.  You can then choose what topic is next you claim I have lied about and have my own ‘truth’ 

1 hour ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

And there it is.

 

You think we're lying when we're doing nothing of the sort.  The reason?  You possess the truth and need to explain it to us liars am I right?

 

I hate to say I called it...but you just admitted it in your response...and I was just going from the tone of your posts when taken in their entirety.

Yes, there it is.  Are you suggesting Knapp didn’t lie or have a “mistruth” about Schiff.  
 

Don’t you think he mischaracterizes things when he brings up a 2018 article that is rebutted by a nonpartisan IG report and the Mueller testimony?  Or only people you disagree with get that distinction. 
 

Believe what you want, join any cult you want, be a far leftist, be a centrist, be a right-winger, i don’t care.  Just don’t expect me to sit by and let folks lie and mischaracterize what I post without pushback.  
 

You STILL, after multiple times of me asking, have yet to point out where I am lying about things.  I have pointed out where others have with sources.   
 

The Holier than Though attitude doesn’t serve you very well unfortunately.  Be Best 

18 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It also makes me wonder about the year after that and the year after that, etc. It's just kinda based on luck of having your debt be large when this happens. Are they gonna do it annually then? I do think it might be a good idea to make community college free, but they can't do that if they don't get the Senate, and I doubt Biden wants to. I actually doubt Biden wants to cancel a large amount of debt anyway, but he has mentioned $10,000. If it's that small I say just send checks out again for $2,000 or whatever to make it more fair, but maybe lower the income threshold or stagger the amounts. 

If they do decide to do student loan forgiveness, which I 100% disagree with, I will not be sending a dime to MIT next year and will recommend my son take out the maximum amount of loan since it’s free anyways.  I’d may go ahead and apply to get my MBA also so I’m admitted if this law passes that way I can max out a loan also, take a few classes and put the excess in the market.   
 

since many of us paid our bills and got no relief, might as well take advantage if things change.   

On 11/10/2020 at 3:07 PM, TGHusker said:

Good tweet  - I think Adam Schiff should be given the honor.  He earned it last year with his work on the impeachment. 

 

 

 

Darrell Issa 

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

And I showed you how that was proven wrong before the IG ever issued Barr's bogus report.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yet you didn’t because the trash articles are riddled with falsehoods as proven by IG report.  Barr doesn’t have a report.  one was even written by Phillip Bump.. hehehehe.  He’s a Democrat lackey 
 

More lies and I’m the only one willing to call you out on your BS lies. 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Support the effort to change it instead of acting like nothing needs changed. 

When did I act like or directly say nothing needs changed?  Pretty sure I was directly saying to you it is no good and needs changed. 

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Shot:

 

 

Chaser:

 

 

You disagreed when I brought up Schiff lying about Russia/FISA and lied saying Schiff told the truth to the public.   End of story.   
 

I don’t need chasers with my shots.  I moved past HS and a college many years ago. 

On 11/17/2020 at 11:39 AM, ColoradoHusk said:

Yards per attempt is my favorite statistic to use when analyzing the efficiency of a passing game, especially over the course of a season.

Over the course of a single game or two, YPA needs to also be taken into context with the raw number of chunk passing plays.  One 80 yrd bomb and a 60 yrd slip screen combined with 15 short out routes/screens/and over the middle TE dumps is different than having seven 15 yrd plus chunk passing plays and 8 or 9 less than 10 yrd plays.   The second option will be a more efficient offense in the long run. 

On 11/17/2020 at 11:00 AM, Mavric said:

 

Yes and no.  When the vast majority of your throws are not more than 5 yards downfield, you should be completing a pretty high percentage.  

 

Also, one pass to Falk was pretty low and behind him but he was able to adjust and make the catch.  So it shows up as a completion but accuracy wasn't very good.  Obviously the pass to Warner is at the other end of the spectrum.

Agreed.  If Nebraska is going to continue with an offense that does not throw the ball Downfield, whatever QB that plays needs to be throwing at a 70% plus completion clip and avoid negative yardage plays. 

22 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I hope we win a bunch more games so we can agonize over quotes like this, which aren't the way Blackshirts should be handled, instead of worrying if we're going to beat the Northwestern's & Purdue's of the world.

 

Frost saying here that the Blackshirts these guys have aren't given permanently, and they have to be earned each week. 

 

 

 

They should be earned on a week to week basis 

34 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You don't have to "believe it".  All you have to do is look at maps to see that it happens.  I also firmly believe that both parties do it in certain states.  However, interestingly....the movement to change things so it doesn't happen seems to only be coming from one side.  The other side fights the effort.  That should tell you something.

So bring a lawsuit. Run for office and make it your priority.  Start a grassroots effort to get the issue on the forefront 

What do you want me to say or do that I haven’t already??  Gerrymandering is illegal and shouldn’t happen.  Both parties do it and unfortunately it doesn’t get called out enough.  Reform needs to take place.  We are on the same side here yet you continue to try to argue for some reason I can’t comprehend.   

And while we come together on gerrymandering, let’s add in term limits for both houses of Congress so we can actually get things accomplished in DC 

14 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

@Archy1221 I'm still trying to figure out how you know all of these deep secrets and the rest of us all are so ignorant and alone in the dark on them...and we need someone like you to enlighten us because we are just so unintelligent and unable to determine fact from fiction...we need you to save us from ourselves.  (this seems to be the tone and message of all your posts together)

 

It's funny...because when I was in a high control religious cult...they said the same thing.  They said that only they had the truth.  They said that everyone else was mislead.  They said you couldn't trust any other source of news but the ones they approved..namely, their own publications.  They misquoted scientists to 'prove' evolution false.  They misquoted physicists to make them seem like they believed in a creator.  They lied, they misinformed, and they berated anyone who dared tell them different.  And they sure as hell couldn't debate with anyone because they kept morphing their answers to fit whatever narrative they were pushing at that time.

 

At this point in time, it's fairly clear that your judgement is quite clouded and you're attempting to sway opinion based on conjecture, op eds, and misinformation.

 

In closing, you're using misinformation, poor quoting, poor sourcing and you're trying to dismiss factual evidence...and I'm not sure what it's going to get you or what you're trying to accomplish in doing so.

Please enlighten me on what “deep secrets” I have claimed to know.  
 

I have never claimed nor said I am trying to save you from yourself or your thoughts.   I just pint out all of you and knapps lies.  Be more truthful and I will respond less.  It’s ok to say GOP sucks/ you disagree with policies/ Trump is a bad President.  Just don’t make up blatant lies.  @KnappIctried to say Schiff is a bastion of Teuth when it comes to Russia and that couldn’t be any further from the truth and I point that out based on INDEPENDENT IG reports and Congressional Testimony written in articles. Just cause you hate the source doesn’t make it incorrect.  
 

you being in a cult is a you problem not a me problem so not sure why I’m involved. Looks like you could use some therapy because it obviously seems to bother you still.  And I’m not making light of mental Therapy.  It works well as members of my family can attest.  
 

Get mad and angry all you want, but burying your head in one side of opinion and refusing to acknowledge facts can be a harmful thing.  Learn a little about about Group Think and the reason it’s bad.  And it certainly doesn’t help move conversation forward.  
 

In closing, most of you have tried gaslighting, using strawman arguments, or flat lying about stuff I never said.   At least you tried once to respond with specifics When refuting.  I re-posted the link for you.  I assume it showed up the second time.  Your last post is just a bunch of conjecture, blabber, and complaining about everything and hoping made sense yet pointing out nothing specific.  That might work in a cult but not with me.  

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You said it doesn’t exist unless there is a court case. There is t one here, so it doesn’t exist?

What???  If someone believes a party in control has gerrymandered districts, then they need to bring a court case forward.   This isn’t rocket science.  Why do you keep bringing this up to me.  Gerrymandering is wrong and I believe both sides of the isle try to re-district as much as they can to help their own cause and take it as far they can before crossing that line.   Some go too far and get caught. It’s stupid. 

24 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I don't need to debunk the Federalist. It's yellow journalism. No one takes it as a serious source. But it's cool that this is the source you're sticking to.

 

The DOJ is not "nonpartisan."  Barr's DOJ attempted to represent trump in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit.

 

C'mon. I'm not even breaking a sweat here. This is comical.

 

 

No, he sues fake internet cows. And gets laughed out of court. Much like trump with his silly election lawsuits.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2020/05/17/disinformation-from-schiff-media-damaged-america/amp/
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.fresnobee.com/news/local/article238275723.html
 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/adam-schiff-transcripts-russia-trump-collusion-wsj
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-fbi.html
 

At this point you are just being a clown for no good reason.  You are dying on a hill you don’t need to die on.  
 

and yes IG’s are non partisan.   Horowitz was sworn in under Obama. 

46 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

There were two articles. So clearly you didn't read them. Your best source is The Federalist, which is the worst kind of propaganda bunk. And we've already put to bed Barr's IG. None of that is worth the paper it's printed on.

 

You're defending Devin Nunes, who has sued a fake internet cow. Think about what you're doing here.

Yes I read both articles.  WAPO doesn’t much reference Schiff it talks more Nunes.  You clearly have no idea what I did or didn’t do and you continue to us that M O and continuously lie about someone.  
 

You reference the Federalist as lies yet can’t debunk a Federalist article.  That’s interesting. 
 

not sure if you realize it but Barr doesn’t have an IG. The department of justice does and they are nonpartisan. 
 

Yes. Devin Nunes exposes the lies and FISA abuse.  That’s a good thing no matter who did it.  Your refusing to accept facts just because you don’t like someone. Think about what your doing here.