2020 Presidential Election

[ewen21]

 

'The Case for Gay Reparations',

 

Right.  That is the title of the OP ed that was in the NY Times last week.  I see the words "Gay Reparations" used in succession. I think your issue is with who wrote that op ed.

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Carole, what's the problem? Are the words "gay" and "reparations" some verboten toxic blend?

 

The New York Times used that term:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/opinion/gay-reparation-stonewall.html

 

 

We had this enormous hurdle in the immigration discussion when I referred to "illegals" even though they were, in fact, illegally crossing the border. Now we have this.

 

What exactly are you trying to insinuate? That I am uniformed? You honestly have no idea if you think that. I actually have a transgender nephew whom I love and would protect like he is my own.''

 

Fly off the handle if you have to, but these reactions to words really stunts the discussion.

REPARATIONS FOR GAYS? Is that better?

What should we call it. You tell me.

 

Sheesh

Tax refunds are not reparations.

[ewen21]

 

Tax refunds are not reparations.

Dude, relax.

 

This came from an article I read in the NY Times last week.  I have, quite frankly, been rather busy in my personal life and haven't had a ton of time to bring this up.  Since Warren was being discussed I put it out there.

 

If you don't want to call it reparations FINE.  We don't have to call it that.  This guy did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/opinion/gay-reparation-stonewall.html

 

He made case for what he called "gay reparations"

 

If you guys are going to jump down my throat for that I guess that's life.  It really doesn't bother me all that much, but it is kind of shocking how intolerant certain people are when it comes to language.  When I read an OP ed article in the NY Times entitled "A Case for Gay Reparations" I didn't think for one second that the term would be viewed as offensive.  Then again, I should have known better.  I should have known it would spark this kind of reaction.

 

And by the way, it IS reparations via a tax refund.

We can debate that until the cows come home, but I would rather not.

 

 

 

[Squirrel]

Carole, what's the problem? Are the words "gay" and "reparations" some verboten toxic blend?

 

The New York Times used that term:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/opinion/gay-reparation-stonewall.html

 

 

We had this enormous hurdle in the immigration discussion when I referred to "illegals" even though they were, in fact, illegally crossing the border. Now we have this.

 

What exactly are you trying to insinuate? That I am uniformed? You honestly have no idea if you think that. I actually have a transgender nephew whom I love and would protect like he is my own.''

 

Fly off the handle if you have to, but these reactions to words really stunts the discussion.

REPARATIONS FOR GAYS? Is that better?

What should we call it. You tell me.

 

Sheesh

Don’t take that tone with me. I did as you asked re Elizabeth Warren, and gay reparations isn’t something she stated. I was just stating the findings. Further, as Mr. Brooks pointed, amended taxes aren’t reparations, at least not in the manner most think about it.

[Squirrel]

Dude, relax.

 

This came from an article I read in the NY Times last week. I have, quite frankly, been rather busy in my personal life and haven't had a ton of time to bring this up. Since Warren was being discussed I put it out there.

 

If you don't want to call it reparations FINE. We don't have to call it that. This guy did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/opinion/gay-reparation-stonewall.html

 

He made case for what he called "gay reparations"

 

If you guys are going to jump down my throat for that I guess that's life. It really doesn't bother me all that much, but it is kind of shocking how intolerant certain people are when it comes to language. When I read an OP ed article in the NY Times entitled "A Case for Gay Reparations" I didn't think for one second that the term would be viewed as offensive. Then again, I should have known better. I should have known it would spark this kind of reaction.

 

And by the way, it IS reparations via a tax refund.

We can debate that until the cows come home, but I would rather not.

You are the one that needs to relax. Sheeesh.

[PseudoSABR]

 

And by the way, it IS reparations via a tax refund.

We can debate that until the cows come home, but I would rather not.

No, it is not.  It puts gay couples retroactively at the same tax level as heterosexual couples.  It is not a payment for some harm society caused them.  

 

Hold yourself accountable and quit being so sloppy with your words, and then lashing out when you get called out on it.   The term--reparation--as used here is meant to discredit the idea, and invoke anger over "special treatment" from a variety of bigots.  In that sense, it has worked in getting you to lazily repeat it.

[Vanimal46]

Bernie is causing a lot of buzz with his latest proposal to eliminate all student debt...

 

I highly recommend this article to show this is just a temporary band aid.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/upshot/student-loan-debt-forgiveness.html

[Vanimal46]

From the article I posted:

 

"According to the Department of Education, only 45 percent of student loans are used to attend public colleges and universities, presumably because tuition at those schools is already lower than in the private sector.

 

The department also reports that 40 percent of loans are taken out to attend graduate or professional school — for example, master’s and Ph.D. programs, law school, business school and medical school. This number is large because graduate school is expensive and, in contrast with loans for undergraduates, there is no hard cap on how much money students can borrow from the federal government for graduate school. People can borrow the full cost of tuition, books, supplies and living expenses to attend any accredited graduate or professional program. This is why hundreds of graduate programs produce average loan balances of $100,000 or more.

 

Combine the two statistics, and it’s clear that the majority of all student loans are taken out to attend private colleges or graduate school.

 

This means that the day after Senator Sanders “hits the reset button,” as he put it in the news conference, the national student debt odometer would begin rapidly spinning again."

[ewen21]

 

Don’t take that tone with me. I did as you asked re Elizabeth Warren, and gay reparations isn’t something she stated. I was just stating the findings. Further, as Mr. Brooks pointed, amended taxes aren’t reparations, at least not in the manner most think about it.

I didn't initiate anything with you, Carole.  I was speaking to SABR and you took the ball and ran with it.  Please don't paint me as being "sensitive" because I have no problem with an open debate.  Not need to trade insults or get ugly if you want to talk about this.  You haven't even bothered to find out if I am for against or thinking about it.

 

As far as your findings go, I got the term from the NY Times (about as famously liberal as a publication can be).  If you want me to stop calling it "gay reparations" then DONE.  Tell me what you think it outght to be called and that is what I will call it.

 

Finally, (to both you and Mr. Brooks) tax refunds are not "reparations" but reparations come from SOMEWHERE and in this case they are being disbursed/deployed via a tax refund.  Pretty basic stuff and the kind of thing Mr. Brooks tends miss when he gets laconic.  

[ewen21]

 

No, it is not.  It puts gay couples retroactively at the same tax level as heterosexual couples.  It is not a payment for some harm society caused them.  

 

Hold yourself accountable and quit being so sloppy with your words, and then lashing out when you get called out on it.   The term--reparation--as used here is meant to discredit the idea, and invoke anger over "special treatment" from a variety of bigots.  In that sense, it has worked in getting you to lazily repeat it.

Tell me what you want it to be called and I will call it that.

 

In fact, you and Carole should both come to a consensus on it and get back to me.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I didn't initiate anything with you, Carole. I was speaking to SABR and you took the ball and ran with it. Please don't paint me as being "sensitive" because I have no problem with an open debate. Not need to trade insults or get ugly if you want to talk about this. You haven't even bothered to find out if I am for against or thinking about it.

 

As far as your findings go, I got the term from the NY Times (about as famously liberal as a publication can be). If you want me to stop calling it "gay reparations" then DONE. Tell me what you think it outght to be called and that is what I will call it.

 

Finally, (to both you and Mr. Brooks) tax refunds are not "reparations" but reparations come from SOMEWHERE and in this case they are being disbursed/deployed via a tax refund. Pretty basic stuff and the kind of thing Mr. Brooks tends miss when he gets laconic.

No they are not.

She is proposing retroactively amending the tax returns of married same sex couples to give them the same tax breaks as straight couples.

It's not reparations in any way, shape, or form.

There may be others discussing gay reparations, but Elizabeth Warren is not. The problem is not your choice of words. It's that you described something that doesn't exist (Warren proposing gay reparations), then cited sources that have nothing to do with Warren, and acted like your initial claim is somehow validated just because you found *someone* who wants reparations for gays.

Then you have the audacity to act like people are simply nitpicking your original post. Honestly Ewen, people here patiently attempt to have honest discussions with you, but you continually decline to do so, instead jumping all over the map and twisting your arguments like a seasoned contortionist.

[gunnarthor]

 

I didn't initiate anything with you, Carole.  I was speaking to SABR and you took the ball and ran with it.  Please don't paint me as being "sensitive" because I have no problem with an open debate.  Not need to trade insults or get ugly if you want to talk about this.  You haven't even bothered to find out if I am for against or thinking about it.

 

As far as your findings go, I got the term from the NY Times (about as famously liberal as a publication can be).  If you want me to stop calling it "gay reparations" then DONE.  Tell me what you think it outght to be called and that is what I will call it.

 

Finally, (to both you and Mr. Brooks) tax refunds are not "reparations" but reparations come from SOMEWHERE and in this case they are being disbursed/deployed via a tax refund.  Pretty basic stuff and the kind of thing Mr. Brooks tends miss when he gets laconic.  

You posted a thread stating that Warren wanted gay reparations at a time when reparation over slavery were on the front page of most news services. You knew that you were suggesting that slavery and treatment of homosexuals were the same and suggested that was being pushed by a major candidate of a political party you oppose. After numerous people pointed out how Warren said nothing of the kind, you googled your phrase and found an op-ed published in the NY Times that spoke about gay reparations for criminal convictions of gay men in other countries. That article had nothing to do with Warren or her tax plan and didn't mention either. So your first post - Warren wants reparations for gays - is not supported by anything you've posted nor have you found any post that uses that term in relation to Warren. Others have correctly found that you got that term from far right websites that aren't worth reading.

 

So, to sum up. You posted some provocative BS. You were called out on it. You then lied about where you found the term. You blamed others for being sensitive while LYING to them and denying the truth.

[ewen21]

 

No they are not.
She is proposing retroactively amending the tax returns of married same sex couples to give them the same tax breaks as straight couples.
It's not reparations in any way, shape, or form.
There may be others discussing gay reparations, but Elizabeth Warren is not. The problem is not your choice of words. It's that you described something that doesn't exist (Warren proposing gay reparations), then cited sources that have nothing to do with Warren, and acted like your initial claim is somehow validated just because you found *someone* who wants reparations for gays.
Then you have the audacity to act like people are simply nitpicking your original post. Honestly Ewen, people here patiently attempt to have honest discussions with you, but you continually decline to do so, instead jumping all over the map and twisting your arguments like a seasoned contortionist.

What THEY are you referring to?

[ewen21]

 

So, to sum up. You posted some provocative BS. You were called out on it. You then lied about where you found the term. You blamed others for being sensitive while LYING to them and denying the truth.

 

You surely have called me out.  What was it all about again?

 

 

[ewen21]

 

You knew that you were suggesting that slavery and treatment of homosexuals were the same .

 

 

You couldn't be further from the truth if you think I believe that.  

[ashbury]

I was speaking to SABR

SABR's in San Diego this year and doesn't start until later this week. Let me know what day/time your presentation is, and I'll try to attend.

[gunnarthor]

 

SABR's in San Diego this year and doesn't start until later this week. Let me know what day/time your presentation is, and I'll try to attend.

[ewen21]

 

SABR's in San Diego this year and doesn't start until later this week. Let me know what day/time your presentation is, and I'll try to attend.

I am getting married on the 1st and then traveling (not to San Diego).

 

Would love to meet everyone, though.

 

[ewen21]

 

This post is amazing.  It gets a thank you from me just because John thanked you!

 

You folks are a gas. You are awfully confused about a lot of things, but I enjoy this place.

 

[Vanimal46]

Even Democratic candidates head down to Florida for spring training! Who increased their velocity over the winter? Who changed up their pitch mix? Most importantly, who's in the best shape of their life?

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Even Democratic candidates head down to Florida for spring training! Who increased their velocity over the winter? Who changed up their pitch mix? Most importantly, who's in the best shape of their life?

IMG_20190626_180729.jpg

Tim Ryan? John Delaney? At least I've heard of the rest.  I think this a big time opportunity for Warren to steal the spotlight and the news cycle for at least a day, though I'm not exactly glad she's up against the JV squad.  

[Vanimal46]

Tim Ryan? John Delaney? At least I've heard of the rest. I think this a big time opportunity for Warren to steal the spotlight and the news cycle for at least a day, though I'm not exactly glad she's up against the JV squad.

Split squad game... Gotta wait until it matters more before putting Warren and Bern on the same stage.

[LaBombo]

Warren's already been penciled in as the winner, so here's something to help make it a little more interesting. Tried to find two cards that split them into their respective elimination heats but this will have to do in the mean time...

[Vanimal46]

Warren's already been penciled in as the winner, so here's something to help make it a little more interesting. Tried to find two cards that split them into their respective elimination heats but this will have to do in the mean time...

 

I....

 

Beto Speaks Spanish.

 

That's I...

[PseudoSABR]

I was struck how little Trump (and Biden) was mentioned tonight. The JV team for the Dems is pretty good. Should they win the Whitehouse, they have the makings of a good cabinet.

[Badsmerf]

Klobs flopped. Booker did better than I thought he would, but he annoys me. Beto also annoys me (he should just run for Senate again). Castro, Insley, Warren, Tim Ryan all did well. Tulsi has a cool silver stripe in her hair.

[LaBombo]

 

I was struck how little Trump (and Biden) was mentioned tonight. The JV team for the Dems is pretty good. Should they win the Whitehouse, they have the makings of a good cabinet.

 

Trump... you expect maybe a couple of jabs at him, but he's not the game right now. Everybody hates him, so unless you've got a deadly cool one-liner, there's no way to distinguish yourself from the crowd.

 

Biden... it was almost as if there were a mutual agreement or an unspoken understanding not to go there. He's the zero point that leftward displacement is measured from, and that's still a pretty important yardstick for sorting out who's who.

 

But immigration was a pretty big chunk of the evening, and the most emotional issue. Biden is defined more by who he was on that issue as VP than by who he says he'll be as president. Zero percent of the Dem candidates want to even look like they're critical of the Obama adminstration's policies, especially today... that's just Politics 101.

 

Agree that more of the Night One group are likely to be players down the road.

[LaBombo]

 

Klobs flopped. Booker did better than I thought he would, but he annoys me. Beto also annoys me (he should just run for Senate again). Castro, Insley, Warren, Tim Ryan all did well. Tulsi has a cool silver stripe in her hair.

 

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was a little weirded out by Booker. He was 80% polished legislator, 20% MMA fighter, and it seemed to me that he didn't help himself at all with the uncomfortable burst transmission of Rosetta Stone Spanish.

 

Beto was right; the stage is not his bag, baby. He should've stood on his podium.

 

Gabbard is the foreign policy frontrunner. Castro provided the best pure theater and moved up the most. It was set up to be Warren's night. She did the smart thing... ran it like a qualifying heat and coasted to the medal round.

 

Hickenlooper was mistaken for press at the security checkpoint.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was a little weirded out by Booker. 

He feels like the definition of twice-too-clever to me. All the tones and stories of authenticity, yet....something.

[gunnarthor]

 

Beto also annoys me (he should just run for Senate again).

This x1000. He could have won, he could have made Texas competitive again. Him not running for Senate is going to be the big What If of 2020, I think.