Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

billhike posted:

bman posted:

jcocktosten posted:

 

Exactly, none of the Chicago crew or anyone who has ever been to a CDP has ever met billhike and shared a bottle or ten.

 

I've met Bill?  Possibly more than once?!!

Once that I recall, 2011. A brief introduction in the backyard of Otis. My first CDP and only second time with a mass group from here. You were easy for me to remember - your ample, distinguished  hair combined with how well you “ married up”.

I was thinking you had mistaken me for someone else until your last 5 words above, something I hear a lot! 

billhike posted:

napacat posted:

Not really...just by the politically correct crowd and the crowd that has to label everyone.  And then there are people like you...who just like to pounce on when they think they see easy prey and really have nothing to add.  

I don't think I have ever read any post of interest you wrote or contributed to.  Really a bunch of drivel.  But carry on...

You certainly have me figured out. I’ve never posted a tasting note, organized or attended an offline, mentioned wines purchased or consumed, shared info about deep discounts, sales or coupons, offered travel advice, invited fellow forumites into my home...

Congratulations, super sleuth. (Weren’t detective called Dicks at one time? Seems appropriate here.) If you ever read one of the wine-related threads you’d realize how embarrassingly asinine you are. Assuming you could set aside your pathological myopia. As for being “easy prey”, that’s on you for being unable to back up your comments with facts. 

Rather than reply the way you did to my question about the Canadian broadcaster, you could have not said anything or posted a classy response as RobS did.  But you do not appear to have any class at all.

And you most certainly have posted...etc, I stated they are just not of any interest to me.  

You folks here wonder where people go. You are a small group of like minded boors that  like to pounce on people who are not in 100% agreement with you.  Just like the liberals of the day.  A very select few think they own this board and must police it and regulate who can and say what. 

You drive people away that may want to post more interesting things. Instead you're left with "What did you have for lunch" "what are you wearing"...nonsense. 

 You're a mostly unwelcoming group.  Love the days when DRAB used to post.  As I'm sure some of you did as well...but thank the few pompous A-Holes for driving interesting people away.

Buh-bye

Napacat. KSC02 and I had a discussion recently and we are not sure about something. Did the 3 of us get together for dinner one evening in the Flint (MI) area? It probably would have been about 10 years ago and although your current profile says you joined in 2014, your DRAB comment suggests you were around long before that. Was that you?

steve8 posted:

Napacat. KSC02 and I had a discussion recently and we are not sure about something. Did the 3 of us get together for dinner one evening in the Flint (MI) area? It probably would have been about 10 years ago and although your current profile says you joined in 2014, your DRAB comment suggests you were around long before that. Was that you?

Steve, I hope you and J are doing well.

Napa, what was your WSForum name prior to creating this handle? 😂

Anyone else see the "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" episode about SLAPP Suits and the Bob Murray lawsuit?  The end is a 'must watch'.

napacat posted:

You folks here wonder where people go. You are a small group of like minded boors that  like to pounce on people who are not in 100% agreement with you.  Just like the liberals of the day.  A very select few think they own this board and must police it and regulate who can and say what. 

 

Who has regulated and stopped you from saying anything? No one. No "select few" have censored, or prevented, you from writing any ignorant thought that comes into your head. The majority of people do not support the racist, bigot, sexist know-nothing-in-chief--you do. We have given you the facts and you've responded with transparent deflections, untruths and spin. So as I see it you have a few choices:

1. Stop coming to this thread. I, myself, never even read it until about a year ago.
2. Stop posting your defense of the racist, bigot, sexist know-nothing-in chief. (This would be your choice no one will "police" you.)
3. Keep posting your defense of the racist, bigot, sexist know-nothing-in chief and take your well-deserved lumps.

doubled posted:

Buh-bye

Nice try...didn't say I was leaving. I can handle the discourse.

steve8 posted:

Napacat. KSC02 and I had a discussion recently and we are not sure about something. Did the 3 of us get together for dinner one evening in the Flint (MI) area? It probably would have been about 10 years ago and although your current profile says you joined in 2014, your DRAB comment suggests you were around long before that. Was that you?

Steve8...no not me.   I have been around here for quite a while...would gather 04 or so.

Rothko posted:

Anyone else see the "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" episode about SLAPP Suits and the Bob Murray lawsuit?  The end is a 'must watch'.

I did.  Agree 100%.  It was brilliant.

PH

purplehaze posted:

Rothko posted:

Anyone else see the "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" episode about SLAPP Suits and the Bob Murray lawsuit?  The end is a 'must watch'.

I did.  Agree 100%.  It was brilliant.

PH

robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

csm posted:

robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

napacat posted:

csm posted:

robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

Oh, that evil media. You sure are smart. 

The Old Man posted:

napacat posted:

csm posted:

robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

Oh, that evil media. You sure are smart. 

Provide a more logical and valid reason.  

napacat posted:

The Old Man posted:

napacat posted:

csm posted:

robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

Oh, that evil media. You sure are smart. 

Provide a more logical and valid reason.  

As I've said all you'll do in response is engage in logical fallacies, non sequiturs, falsehoods, deflections, and spin. It is a joke for you to ask for logic.

Please delete excess dialogue in responding to a long thread, ladies and gents..  It makes for a much more "readable" page on what is already a difficult platform.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask one of your kids.  Or a grandchild.      

PH

That wouldn't convince a monkey of a banana.

napacat posted:

  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy...

The most "successful" cable news outlet in the country just happens to be Fox News.  If the media were all that good at destroying people, why would your president be facing only the third public impeachment inquiry in our history?  Certainly they could have prevented this, no?  You know, done some destroying and stuff?

PH

purplehaze posted:

Please delete excess dialogue in responding to a long thread, ladies and gents..  It makes for a much more "readable" page on what is already a difficult platform.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask one of your kids.  Or a grandchild.      

PH

I knew I should have. 

purplehaze posted:

napacat posted:

  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy...

The most "successful" cable news outlet in the country just happens to be Fox News.  If the media were all that good at destroying people, why would your president be facing only the third public impeachment inquiry in our history?  Certainly they could have prevented this, no?  You know, done some destroying and stuff?

PH

There's so many answers to his inane question, why bother? He'll just give you some unrelated nonsense back. Then he'll vomit out some more bulllshit that I guess among his friends is considered wide and deep. Let that sink in. Somewhere there are some people who think this guy is smart. Trumpers of a feather...

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin 

Getting back to the original topic, just for a second...

I got a haircut yesterday.

Back to the most important topic right now in the United States:

Would it be a surprise that just the first five minutes of Devin Nunes' opening statement was a jumble of hyperbolic lies and obfuscation?

As a side note, I'm sick of members of the Trumpublican Party and Fox State News calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party." There is no such thing.

The Old Man posted:

Back to the most important topic right now in the United States:

Would it be a surprise that just the first five minutes of Devin Nunes' opening statement was a jumble of hyperbolic lies and obfuscation?

As a side note, I'm sick of members of the Trumpublican Party and Fox State News calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party." There is no such thing.

Seconded re: “Democrat Party”. 

Nunes is an obvious fool. 

Well, I can't imagine two more credible witnesses than those two guys.  Great job by the staff attorney summarizing and identifying, and stressing key aspects of this shit show.  Really good job by all concerned.  Can't wait to see what garbage the repubs will bring out.  Should be interesting.

PH

winetarelli posted:

Seconded re: “Democrat Party”. 

Nunes is an obvious fool. 

They do this as a slur, plain and simple.  I actually called thistlintom out on this terminology some months back here on the boards.  If I recall, tom indicated that he was unaware of the use of this term as being perceived as derogatory.  

PH

purplehaze posted:

Well, I can't imagine two more credible witnesses than those two guys.

Bill Taylor credible? He's a "deep state" actor who spent 50 years of service to this country and was just waiting for a demagogue like Trump to become president so he could undermine, and lie, and him.

No more streaming services, please. 

(Trying to keep it off-topic a bit)

The GOP has already telegraphed that it will settle on: “Trump tried to extort Ukraine but (1) You can’t blame him, he has no idea what he is doing, (2) he failed so ‘no harm, no foul’, and (3) every President does it.”  While Trump is an obvious incompetent gord, it is not an excuse. The other two are so preposterous, I hope truth can get through to some people. But these excuses are so damaging to public trust and understanding of law.  

And the “rule of law” party reveals itself — it was never about that for most of them.  It was for a few, but they’ve all jumped ship. For the remainers, they just wanted to imprison poor and Black people who broke the law. 

winetarelli posted:

The GOP has already telegraphed that it will settle on: “Trump tried to extort Ukraine but (1) You can’t blame him, he has no idea what he is doing, (2) he failed so ‘no harm, no foul’, and (3) every President does it.”  While Trump is an obvious incompetent gord, it is not an excuse. The other two are so preposterous, I hope truth can get through to some people. But these excuses are so damaging to public trust and understanding of law.  

And the “rule of law” party reveals itself — it was never about that for most of them.  It was for a few, but they’ve all jumped ship. For the remainers, they just wanted to imprison poor and Black people who broke the law. 

I can't believe what a bad job the GOP counsel, Steve Castor, is doing. Steve, lawyer 101-- don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.

raining

Cold. Snow. Winter should start Dec 15th and last until January 10th. 

Oh, for Fuck’s sake. No. First Bloomberg, now Deval Patrick. And there are rumors of Sherrod Brown. No. You all had your chance. Fuck you. No. 

And if anyone splits the vote off of Biden and causes Warren to be the nominee, it will be on your heads. 

I hate being a Democrat. It is hearding cats. And this time it really matters.

winetarelli posted:

Oh, for Fuck’s sake. No. First Bloomberg, now Deval Patrick. And there are rumors of Sherrod Brown. No. You all had your chance. Fuck you. No. 

And if anyone splits the vote off of Biden and causes Warren to be the nominee, it will be on your heads. 

I hate being a Democrat. It is hearding cats. And this time it really matters.

Hillary is reportedly not closing the door on jumping in...

winetarelli posted:

Oh, for Fuck’s sake. No. First Bloomberg, now Deval Patrick. And there are rumors of Sherrod Brown. No. You all had your chance. Fuck you. No. 

And if anyone splits the vote off of Biden and causes Warren to be the nominee, it will be on your heads. 

I hate being a Democrat. It is hearding cats. And this time it really matters.

I've only been a registered Democrat for a few months, and only changed my affiliation from "i" so that I'd have a say in the primary.  Do you honestly think that either Bloomberg or Patrick have enough juice to affect the primaries?  I just don't see it.

I wish I had your (and b-man's) confidence in Biden, but he troubles me a bit.  Electable, probably.  Inspiring?  Not so much.
PH

I am becoming more and more a fan of Klobuchar both for her policies and her electability. UT she has a huge mountain to climb. Also wondering who might pair with Warren should she win to rein in her more extreme ideas. Klobuchar might fit that bill but would America support two women on the ticket?

purplehaze posted:

winetarelli posted:

Oh, for Fuck’s sake. No. First Bloomberg, now Deval Patrick. And there are rumors of Sherrod Brown. No. You all had your chance. Fuck you. No. 

And if anyone splits the vote off of Biden and causes Warren to be the nominee, it will be on your heads. 

I hate being a Democrat. It is hearding cats. And this time it really matters.

I've only been a registered Democrat for a few months, and only changed my affiliation from "i" so that I'd have a say in the primary.  Do you honestly think that either Bloomberg or Patrick have enough juice to affect the primaries?  I just don't see it.

I wish I had your (and b-man's) confidence in Biden, but he troubles me a bit.  Electable, probably.  Inspiring?  Not so much.
PH

I do think they can take enough away from Biden to make Warren the nominee. 

Biden isn’t a rock star. As between him, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bullock, and Bennet he would not be my first choice. But I like him fine. He would be safe, and get things back to a more normal place in foreign and domestic politics. He would assemble a team that I trust. But most importantly, every single poll — even with all of the shit hurled his way from all sides — puts him on much better ground against Trump than anyone else. Warren is consistently one of the worst. And there are parts of her platform and public statements that simply aren’t tenable in a General Election.

The first election I was ever eligible to vote in, I voted for Gore, who didn’t really impress me at the time. But he was a lot better than W to me. Then, I worked on Kerry’s campaign. He was long-winded, but I liked him. Then I got the pleasure of voting for someone I really admired twice — and he won!  Then, Hillary, who was the worst candidate I’ve ever seen, but policy-wise I liked. So, I’ve been all over the place on this. Bennet — and Yang, actually — are probably the two closest to my exact domestic politics, but neither will be the next President and Yang should not be as he knows very little about IR and doesn’t have the gravitas to lead a country out of a paper bag. Buttigieg is the most eloquent, but he just does lousy against Trump in the polls. If Klobuchar or Bullock we’re going to be a hit, it would have happened already.  I’m fine with Biden. It’s already November. Time to get a candidate who can beat Trump and then focus on that. The election is about Trump, it has to be. Biden, more than anyone else, makes the election about Trump. Which, imo, is why he consistently matches up best. 

winetarelli posted:

purplehaze posted:

winetarelli posted:

Oh, for Fuck’s sake. No. First Bloomberg, now Deval Patrick. And there are rumors of Sherrod Brown. No. You all had your chance. Fuck you. No. 

And if anyone splits the vote off of Biden and causes Warren to be the nominee, it will be on your heads. 

I hate being a Democrat. It is hearding cats. And this time it really matters.

I've only been a registered Democrat for a few months, and only changed my affiliation from "i" so that I'd have a say in the primary.  Do you honestly think that either Bloomberg or Patrick have enough juice to affect the primaries?  I just don't see it.

I wish I had your (and b-man's) confidence in Biden, but he troubles me a bit.  Electable, probably.  Inspiring?  Not so much.
PH

I do think they can take enough away from Biden to make Warren the nominee. 

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Respectfully disagree on the interlopers.  I don't think that either of them have the juice to make a sufficient impact.  Despite Bloomie's deep pockets and Patrick's considered opinions, they're too late to the party to suck off more than a few % points.

I do agree with you that this is a one issue election.  I'll support whoever the nominee is with my time and what little cash I can spare.  I'm a bit of a geezer, so the next election won't affect my life enough for me to worry about myself.  I have 2 daughters and 3 grandkids who I'm fighting for.

PH

bman posted:

I am becoming more and more a fan of Klobuchar both for her policies and her electability. UT she has a huge mountain to climb. Also wondering who might pair with Warren should she win to rein in her more extreme ideas. Klobuchar might fit that bill but would America support two women on the ticket?

I think throwing Buttigieg on the tail end of either of these tickets might work.  I do like this guy, but don't think he has the total package this time around as a front-runner.

PH