As long time readers of "rinselberg" are likely already aware, this is just a Subject or thread name that I "had" to use.
But there can't be a Subject (field) without a subject. Unless we were to consider the possibility of the Empty Forum Subject, and who really wants to do that? So here goes:
quote
Democrats oppose Anthony Tata's nomination [for undersecretary of defense for policy] over Islamophobic [sic] social media posts [about President Obama], but it's a fight with a GOP senator [that goes back to 1969 and the Vietnam War] that could upend him.
Get it here (unless you're already satisfied with having read my Subject field.)
James Anderson, who had been acting undersecretary for policy, resigned Tuesday morning and he was quickly replaced by Anthony Tata, a retired Army one-star general. A short time later, Joseph Kernan, a retired Navy vice admiral, stepped down as undersecretary for intelligence, hastening what had been an already planned post-election departure. Kernan was replaced by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who becomes acting undersecretary for intelligence.
Just as we are all aware you are a completely worthless excuse for a man.
Now crawl back into the feted dampness of your own cowardly mind and resume screaming at yourself that you are normal.
No one is interested in your less-than-human existence. Not even you.
Realizing you've got some pretty strong opinions (as do I), this goes past the line IMHO.
I'm sure you'll say that it is in response to a post you don't approve of but, I would argue that Randye has posted that same post numerous times and to my knowledge has never been put on probation by Cliff. Just letting you know my position.
BTW, the GOP Senator is not against Tata, he's just trying to get some names put on the Viet Nam Memorial and using his new power to try and make it happen. Sailors that died 100 miles outside the Combat zone in a mid-sea ship collision.
------------------ Rams Intelligent people speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something. Consider that before telling anyone what's on your mind.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-11-2020).]
Realizing you've got some pretty strong opinions (as do I), this goes past the line IMHO.
I'm sure you'll say that it is in response to a post you don't approve of but, I would argue that Randye has posted that same post
numerous times
and to my knowledge has never been put on probation by Cliff. Just letting you know my position.
More than 1000 times. I am just about certain of that. But I just categorized it as "ancient history" and not part of the forum as it exists today. I think that's how everyone should categorize that message.
I don't care what you think about that message, Rams.
Rest assured that I only entertained the idea of sending you a PM as a Break Glass In Case Of Emergency kind of measure.
It would be an "emergency" if I were to be misconstrued as anything less than 100 percent enthused about the First Amendment.
Something that happened just the other day, in another discussion.
But this isn't such an emergency.
Read-o-Meter estimates that anyone could have read this message in about 17 seconds.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-11-2020).]
More than a 1000 times. I am just about certain of that.
I don't care what you think about that message, Rams.
It really doesn't matter what I think of that message, what matters is what Cliff thinks. His house, his rules. Precisely my point. I have to assume it's an allowed comment. Whether there's any truth to it is not something I care to investigate. But, thanks for reading my post concerning it. I don't normally read many of your posts but I do find some of Boonie's worth reading, this was not one of them.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 11-11-2020).]
It really doesn't matter what I think of that message, what matters is what Cliff thinks. His house, his rules. Precisely my point. I have to assume it's an allowed comment. Whether there's any truth to it is not something I care to investigate. But, thanks for reading my post concerning it. I don't normally read many of your posts but I do find some of Boonie's worth reading, this was not one of them.
Rams
Cliff Pennock WILL indeed decide what he thinks of that message. It's in his hands now.
It ISN'T like the author of it doesn't know the rules now since he's already received TWO PROBATIONS for his continuing behavior.
a) A place that appears to be very similar to where I live. b) A car that doesn't really interest me. c) An obviously "high maintenance", and likely crazy, young woman who doesn't interest me either. (besides the problem it would cause with my wife) d) All of that adds up to hard pass from me.
e) I have a tropical storm to deal with right now anyway.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-11-2020).]
I don't even understand the SUBJECT deal. I never see it anywhere except when I post a new topic. WTH does it even mean to the forum?
Some people don't want to read posts that fall under certain subject/title categories and therefore disable viewing to those that are so marked. Others don't even want to see the index cluttered with threads that are in those undesired categories. Some get tired of opening a thread that appears interesting by title, only to find the title is misleading and the thread is actually about a completely different subject line indicates (clickbait). Marking a thread correctly regardless of what the title is, makes it easier to just entirely avoid wasting time and effort looking at something one has no interest in to begin with.
a) A place that appears to be very similar to where I live. b) A car that doesn't really interest me. c) An obviously "high maintenance", and likely crazy, young woman who doesn't interest me either. (besides the problem it would cause with my wife) d) All of that adds up to hard pass from me.
e) I have a tropical storm to deal with right now anyway.
Rinselberg's thread title used 'tata' as a valediction and a surname. My image used the same word as a euphemism and a brand name. The location of the photo is likely India.
Rinselberg's thread title used 'tata' as a valediction and a surname. My image used the same word as a euphemism acnd a brand name. The location of the photo is likely India.
OK....
I only occasionally pay attention to his gibberish thread titles.
I also missed the correlation in your post.
That said, that young woman still looks like a high maintenance, crazy, girl with nice tatas
Cliff Pennock WILL indeed decide what he thinks of that message. It's in his hands now.
I will let boondawg's remark slip by this time because I have made the exact same mistake a few times now, that I (very briefly) put someone on probation (or even banned) because I was reading an old message from before the "new" rules. So I suspect boondawg thought this was a recent remark as well.
That said, boondawg very well knew that making such comments *now* is cause for a probation and in his case (because it would be his fourth) a permanent ban. But like I said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and let this one slip by. But after this - no more. A repeat will result in an immediate and permanent ban. Boondawg's bucket is full and it just takes a tiny drop...
Topic Closed
