Speakeasy forum

General discussion

This seems about typical

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: This seems about typical
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: This seems about typical
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
You have a problem with foul mouthed individuals?

In reply to: This seems about typical

so does TheRUMP AND the RNC.

The release of a 2005 video of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump making lewd and degrading comments about women has led to recriminations from all corners of the party. Mr Trump’s comments were denounced by the party chairman, the speaker of the House, most former GOP presidential candidates and a flood of members of Congress.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told party officials to redirect funds away from Mr Trump to down-ballot candidates, according to an official informed of the decision. In practical terms, the party will be working to mobilise voters who support GOP House and Senate candidates regardless of their position on the presidential race...



Trump Goes After 'Foul-Mouthed' McCain

After calling out Paul Ryan this morning on Twitter, Trump pivoted his attention to Sen. John McCain who over the weekend withdrew his support of the candidate.

"The very foul mouthed Sen. John McCain begged for my support during his primary (I gave, he won), then dropped me over locker room remarks!" Trump tweeted.

Trump all day has been tweeting about the party breaking from him, calling Democrats "far more loyal."


Wait til TheRUMP can get at the nuclear button....THEN you'll see a tantrum.

Collapse -
Just think...

In reply to: You have a problem with foul mouthed individuals?

....how great all future elections would be if they dropped a few of those on California, Nevada, and New Mexico. Liberal crybabies,.....LOOK TO THE SKIES!

(idiots, they'd probably believe such a rumor, LOL)

Collapse -
(NT) Hey! I'm in New Mexico!!

In reply to: Just think...

Collapse -
Though I hate foul language itself

In reply to: You have a problem with foul mouthed individuals?

I know that it's use has varying purposes. The same expletive used out of personal frustration can also be used like a bullet against another person. Such language can be used as both criticism and as an explosive force of hatred. While, IMO, foul mouthed language is never acceptable, its intentioned use is everything when we consider the possible damage that a person would like to inflict.

Collapse -
So how do you think Trump is using foul language?

In reply to: Though I hate foul language itself

Frustration OR hatred?

I say hatred.

Collapse -
So when he says

In reply to: So how do you think Trump is using foul language?

"What the hell do you have to lose" to blacks and Latinos, it's out of hatred? For whom?

Collapse -
You gave me only two choices

In reply to: So how do you think Trump is using foul language?

My answer can only be for what I've seen on TV and that answer is "neither". Guess what?..even bigotry doesn't infer hatred. Hatred, in my definition, is shown when on wishes harm to another person. On TV, I've seen many acts of such hatred directed toward Trump but nothing I could describe as hatred towards others from him. Wanting to deport persons here illegally doesn't mean hate towards them exits.

Collapse -
RE:You gave me only two choices

In reply to: You gave me only two choices

In this post by you.....I know that it's use has varying purposes. The same expletive used out of personal frustration can also be used like a bullet against another person. Such language can be used as both criticism and as an explosive force of hatred. While, IMO, foul mouthed language is never acceptable, its intentioned use is everything when we consider the possible damage that a person would like to inflict.

Are there any more "choices" in YOUR post that YOU suggested.

Your post is where I got the "choices".

Collapse -
I mentioned only two

In reply to: RE:You gave me only two choices

That doesn't mean more aren't possible. Ignorance is another possibility as well as is learned response or prejudice learned through observation. This isn't about me but your pattern here is to generally attack a person or their answer rather than express your own thoughts. You indicated that you believe Trump acted out of hatred and gave me only two options. You got my answer to those two.

Collapse -
RE:This isn't about me but your pattern here is to generally

In reply to: I mentioned only two

This isn't about me but your pattern here is to generally attack a person or their answer rather than express your own thoughts.

Me thinks we're more alike than either one of us will admit, and you do a way better job of sitting on the fence than I ever could. I attack a position and you take both sides of an argument.

RE:You indicated that you believe Trump acted out of hatred and gave me only two options.

NO...i gave 2 "examples" of what the RNC AND TheRUMP consider "foul language"...the word "hatred" wasn't used FIRST by me. It was your choice of words.
Collapse -
Me thinks you've forgotten something

In reply to: RE:This isn't about me but your pattern here is to generally

The OP referred to the screaming of obscenities. You're reply reduced that to the use of foul language. My argument was that obscene language isn't the equivalent of be foul mouthed. There's a big difference between someone casually using a word but deliberately using it to apply to a person. One can utter the expletive "Oh S**t" and mean no harm to anyone. But, calling someone a "POS" in anger is another story. The same goes for the "F" word. One can say they'd like to do that to someone and I'd call that surely vulgar and despicable. Now shout that word out loudly, end it "you" (or the name of a person), and punctuate that with extending the middle finger, and you've got yourself an act of hatred. Did you see any of that going on in the news lately? I sure did. This should not be that difficult to understand.

Collapse -
As I stated

In reply to: Me thinks you've forgotten something

YOU used "hatred" first, so don't claim I limited your choices.

2 words YOU will never post in SE....Trump and/or Clinton?

You will never put either of those names to actions that you claim people do.

Sitting on the fence.

Collapse -
Still forgetting

In reply to: As I stated

Consider my context of the word "hatred". Here's a reminder.
"Such language can be used as both criticism and as an explosive force of hatred....to which you followed with;

"Frustration OR hatred?

I say hatred."


You want me to name names to make this more clear? Well...I did. I said that I didn't hear hatred from "Trump" but did hear it leveled toward him. I have often used the other name you mentioned.

You seem to really like trying to put people on the defensive rather than engage in intelligent dialog. BTW, that statement doesn't imply hatred of you.

Collapse -
RE: I didn't hear hatred from "Trump"

In reply to: Still forgetting

Examples of "not hatred"?

The following day, Trump implied that the attackers were justified.

"Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,"


HE doesn't "spit it out" he "implies"?
Collapse -
And, by the way

In reply to: As I stated

what you might term "fence sitting", I call "a reluctance to pass judgment". I am quite comfortable with that attitude.

Collapse -
RE:a reluctance to pass judgment".

In reply to: And, by the way

"passing judgement"?

You must have passed judgement when/if you voted, and you are keeping your judgement secret....BUT you won't say anything negative about TheRUMP OR anything positive about Clinton?

Collapse -
My very last reply to this ridiculous sub-thread

In reply to: RE:a reluctance to pass judgment".

I have said from the beginning that I was not in favor of either candidate and I gave my negative viewpoints of both. My greater negativity has been directed at the media, however, and how they distort the truth in a manner that seems to rile people enough to take to the streets. Without that kind of media coverage, such events would likely be fewer.

I happen to have a sore spot for improperly placed charges of such things as racism, sexism, and many other "isms" that Trump was being cited as having. My opinion is that we toss these charges out too loosely and too often. They become the nukes in the armory of politicians fighting to win elections. I don't like it and I'll defend against it when I feel these weapons are being used inappropriately regardless of who is their intended target. Fair is fair but sometimes even a pit bull deserves to be defended.

Collapse -
RE:they distort the truth

In reply to: My very last reply to this ridiculous sub-thread

By broadcasting live coverage of what the candidates say? HOW?...watch their speeches turn your tv off. No one is being forced to watch the commentary.

You think they have to "distort" what the candidates say....others don't, they shall be know as supporters.

Without that kind of media coverage, such events would likely be fewer.

AND if the candidates didn't make speeches...the media wouldn't have the ammo....It's easy to twist what someone says...really difficult to lie about what someone says.

Fair is fair but sometimes even a pit bull deserves to be defended.

TheRUMP?

No defense for Hillary IF/WHEN she supposedly throws a tantrum.

Multiple online sources are reporting a claim that the former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton threw a “drunken and violent temper tantrum” upon learning that she had lost the 2016 election.

Multiple online sources are reporting a claim that the former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton threw a “drunken and violent temper tantrum” upon learning that she had lost the 2016 election. According to various versions of the claim appearing online, Clinton became so “physically violent” on the night of November 8, 2016, after it became clear that she had lost the election that she had to be restrained.

Kincannon claimed in a series of tweets posted on November 14 and 15 that he obtained the information from an unnamed CNN reporter who filed a report about Clinton’s “psychotic drunken rage” that his editors refused to publish it.

However, Kincnannon apparently later took down the tweets after several blogs, including the Gateway Pundit, had reported it.

Your News Wire, a source of online rumors and conspiracy theories, also reported Kincannon’s claim, adding new, wholly unsubstantiated details under the headline “Drunk Hillary Beat S**t Out Of Bill Clinton On Election Night.”


Watch their speeches draw your own conclusions? Don't be influenced by what you hear unless it comes out of their mouth?

Collapse -
End of month

In reply to: Though I hate foul language itself

....I will engage in some fowl mouthed activity.

Collapse -
nixon had a very foul mouth

In reply to: This seems about typical

I personally do not cuss. the worse I will do is to call someone a stupid jerk but, I will not hold anything against anyone who has a foul mouth.

whether or not hillary when a bit crazy on election night depends whether or not you are supporter. You must admit, everyone thought she was going to win, she thought she was going to win and it was a major crash when she fell to earth after learning the truth. It was such a major disappointment I would not have been surprised if she ended up in the hospital. I mean, she was on the cover of Newsweek as the next president of the US. I saw on sale at the local Krogers. I wished I picked up a copy...

Collapse -
I'm fairly certain you can still buy

In reply to: nixon had a very foul mouth

Cleveland Indians World Series Champion T-shirts. Stuff like this gets pre-made all the time. News media folks are also famous for publishing fiction before facts are known. You'll also hear that reports of famous person's deaths are written while they're alive with just a few blanks to fill in when they actually pass.

Collapse -
RE:News media folks are also famous for publishing fiction

In reply to: I'm fairly certain you can still buy

News media folks are also famous for publishing fiction before facts are known.

I disagree, here's the culprit
Collapse -
So you think social media tipped the election?

In reply to: RE:News media folks are also famous for publishing fiction

I don't use it...unless SE is is considered part of it. But, from what I see, the age group that uses it most favored Hillary by a wide margin.

90% of 18-29 year olds use social media

and voted for her in similar fashion.

18-28 year olds prefer Hillary 55% to 37% over Trump

If social media is that powerful, Hillary's team would have an advantage in the gender and rural vs urban/suburban categories. When I look at voting data, it would appear that population density of an area played big role in how people voted. In the heaviest population areas where voters tend to be about 10 years younger than rural voters, Hillary wins by a huge margin. (sorry, no link to that statistic but you can look it up). It was in the rural areas (older voters who use social media less) that Trump supporters coalesced to put him over the top in the electoral college vote.

I've heard many reports that the main reason Hillary lost is that Trump, though he had less overall support, had his supporters show up at the polls while too many of Hillary's did not. True or untrue?...I can't say. But, if that truly is the case, those whose tweets weren't followed up by their actions got what they deserved.

Collapse -
Nice work, Toni.

In reply to: This seems about typical

Your thread now has a shouting match of its own. Happy

Collapse -
I thought it was a nice touch

In reply to: Nice work, Toni.

and showed who really didn't have the temperament to be president...... Devil

Collapse -
Shouting match?

In reply to: Nice work, Toni.

At least one of us is whispering, rarely raises his voice and not at all prone to violence. Now, if you want to dispute that, I'll ask "Would you like to try and pick up your teeth with two broken arms!!" HappyDevil

Collapse -
Help!! Lee!!

In reply to: Shouting match?

He pushed me down the escalator!!

Collapse -
Isn't it nice to be older

In reply to: Help!! Lee!!

We can say what we want and no one feels threatened. They just think we're cute. Happy

Collapse -
I touched you,...

In reply to: Isn't it nice to be older

..now you have cooties. Wink

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.