And yet I’m the one who has the backing of multiple independent observers all saying in the same way that you’re wrong. And you have you.
And so the moon hoaxer thread plays out to its inevitable conclusion.
You keep saying “all” and “everyone”. I’ve already shown that’s false. I guess you can keep repeating it, but it doesn’t make it any less wrong.
Speaking of which, can you clarify the “blue” versus “that blue” issue you were asked about earlier?
Kind of nervy of you to demand other people admit errors while not yourself admitting that you misrepresented Cuomo’s statement, isn’t it?
I know, I know—you don’t think you made a mistake. Imagine everyone you think should admit error just saying that right back to you.
You are the one who appears to be confused. EM clearly did understand what I said in my initial post in this thread:
You, just as clearly, did not understand that post. Because if you had, you would not have asked someone who hasn’t read the thread to provide you with posts from that thread.
Q.E.D.
Not having read it even now, I feel safe in relying on the way EM and others have characterized your posts:
This habit of gleefully grasping at a politician’s remarks (clumsy, ambiguous or otherwise) and asserting that the remarks ‘prove’ something about an entire political party, is one of the most childishly disreputable tactics to which the right resorts on an unfortunately frequent basis.
Well it’s a good thing that wasn’t done in this thread then, isn’t it? I have not “asserted that the remarks ‘prove’ something about an entire political party”.
If you would read the thread, you might know that, but as it is now, you’re speaking from a position of ignorance on the matter.
Do tell. No, really, do tell us which king or kings got rid of slavery by fiat.
Like “Truth is not truth”?
Granted I would have expected better from a former prosecutor, but everyone knew what he meant, and he’s right. “Truth” can be spun and shaded and twisted, and the winner gets final say on what the truth is.
Bzzz. Bad parsing on aisle 12. “… multiple independent observers all saying …” didn’t mean what you implied. Just as your comment to Sherred went wildly askew.*
You can feel hopeful, however. As the length of this thread approaches infinity, the probability of a post of yours containing an actual true statement approaches 1.
*Shererd, I caught that ridiculous mistake but making an issue of it always disrupted the points I was making. I’m glad you came back to highlight it. Just goes to reinforce the analogy to moon hoaxer threads where the cumulative knowledge of scientists all (yes, all) combining their manifold understanding of facts serves to trample underfoot every misleading statement made by the other side.
Can you please explain what was intended by the title of the thread, if it were not that you felt that your understanding of these out of context remarks was a “common sentiment on the left”?
You have certainly asked whether these remarks prove something about an entire party, and when you were told no, not only do these remarks not prove something about an entire party, but this out of context quote doesn’t even prove anything about the larger paragraph and even sentence that you have cut them out of, you disagreed, not only with the fact that you cut these 4 words out of a larger speech out of context, but that your misrepresentation of these remarks do represent what you believe to be a common sentiment on the left.
If that is not the case, do you have any sort of reason for starting this OP? Can you clarify what you are attempting to assert with this thread that you have started?
Or, are you just asking questions?
If all you are doing is innocently asking a question that you were truly interested in knowing the answer to, then the answer is “No.” [/endthread] Accept that answer, and move on. Arguing against that answer indicates that you do feel that these remarks do in fact “prove” something about an entire political party.
The thread title, and OP, were a question, not a claim. I wanted to hear Dopers thoughts on the matter.
I wasn’t only told “no”. Some people responded with affirmations. Did you read post #164?
Just asking questions, then.
Yes, I read your post #164, where you seemed to express your confusion that anyone could criticize the actions of a country that they still felt was pretty good, even if not perfect. If your definition of great is perfect, then I would say that America is not, has never been, and never will be great, and I would say that about every other country, business and institution ever created or to be created by man. If your definition of great is pretty good, then yeah, it’s been pretty good for some, not so good for others. If your definition of great is an egalitarian society with equality and opportunity for all, the US has not been very good at all, and great is right out the window, but we are getting better, and may be great in the future. If your definition of great is powerful economically and/or militarily, then the US wasn’t all that great up until the early 20th century. If your definition of greatness is the respect for the country around the world, then we have been pretty great to some, not so great to others, but in any cases, that greatness is waning rapidly under the current administration. People with different definitions of greatness can still come to different conclusions as to that greatness while judging something objectively.
As you refuse to recognize that there is a significant distinction between “great” and “that great”, you will continue to be confused by this. Those of us that understand this basic grammar structure are not having any problems with this.
Since you are here, let me ask you this.
Gen John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, relatively recently said “Chance Phelps was killed under my command right next to me, and it’s worth seeing that if you’ve never seen it.” Is this a common sentiment on the right?
That’s an excellent example.
The full context—as with Cuomo—provides quite a different slant on this than does the raw quote. (And I say that as someone who is no fan of Kelly.)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4686958/general-john-kelly-describes-process-death-service-member
Yes, exactly.
Owen Shroyer of Infowars said, “Why is John Kerry going down to Antarctica just a week after the election to discuss climate change and then you have energy beams coming out of Antarctica splitting hurricanes?”
Is this a common sentiment on the right? Just asking.
Yes, that’s a real quote. The context is provided at the link. The quote is actually less crazy than the entire discussion. Donald Trump watches Infowars, has boosted claims made by them, and lauds Alex Jones. No insinuations about the right should be made about any of this, though. That would be wrong. Apparently.
Cuomo should not have apologized for his statement. Regardless of whether he meant it or not. The people who were “upset” by the statement will hound him regardless. By apologizing, all he is doing to showing weakness and a lack of conviction. Never apologize.
Yes, that’s all well and good, but completely besides the point. You said “… when you were told no…” And I pointed out that I wasn’t only told “no”. We agree that definitions of “great” can vary from person to person. Do we also agree that some of the responses in this thread were affirmative responses to my question?
No link for context? I’m disappointed.
Well that fits right in with my impressions of him, so, there’s that.
Cuomo has been a disappointment as governor, although that’s possibly because the expectations were too high. New York politics are a sewer.
At the same time, we’re all disappointed that you’re continuing to try to deflect discussion to what we said rather than what you said. It won’t work. You can continue to try forever and it still won’t work.
To your question as to whether it is a common sentiment on the left? No, not at all. They do not speak for the common sentiment of the left. They didn’t answer that question, but rather, more fully clarified the position of the democratic party, and their understanding of Cuomo’s words.
Do you feel that the United States has no problems? Do you feel that any country that has problems cannot be great? Do you feel that a country that has problem can work to solve those problems, and become greater? If a country looks at how it could be, with some of its problems solved, and compares it to how it is, and how it was, would it not be reasonable to say, “We can be greater than we were, and how we are, and compared to how we could be, we were ‘never that great’”?
There are two questions here, that you are seeming to get confused and conflate. There is the question of, can we be greater? Yes, we can. And in that sense, compared to how we can be, we are not that great. So, to answer, literally, your question, America “was never that great”, in relation to how we can be, then yes, that is a common sentiment on the left. And that was what those posters were saying.
As you have denied the basic grammatical structure of “that” being a word to use in comparisons, you are insisting that the phrase implies that America “was never great”, and using the posters pointing out of problems with our country as evidence to that end.
They we open, honest, and level with their responses in an attempt to help you to better understand, which is exactly the problem that open, honest, and level people get themselves into when others take their words out of context. Ever wonder why we cannot have honest politicians? This is why.
If I were actually trying to push that narrative as you are, then that would be a valid criticism. As I am using it as an analogy to what you have done here, it is not.
As someone on the left, I’d say that America was last great on November 7th, 2016. It’s been downhill since then.