Georgiapacking.org banner

81 - 100 of 101 Posts

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #81 (Edited)
Yet. Based on an abstention. Same link directly above.

Comment above appears misleading. Always good to read the article before citation.

Nemo

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/fu...lections-director/22E55XY6JZDNNK365VZJVADQZU/

Fulton County Commission says elections director will keep his job for now
By: WSBTV.com News Staff
Updated: February 17, 2021 - 3:42 PM

ATLANTA - Fulton County's elections director is keeping his job-for now.

The county election board's recommendation to get rid of Rick Barron failed to get the 4 votes needed to pass, so now, it will likely come up again at the next commission meeting.

The vote to accept the recommendation of the Fulton County Elections Board was split with three in favor and three against. Commissioner Natalie Hall abstained.

"We need to get an opinion from the county attorney as to whether it's properly before us or not, but the bottom line though right now is Mr. Barron is still the director," said Fulton County Commission Chair Robb Pitts.

continued

edited for font and spacing since posting, nothing else.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,327 Posts
Comment above appears misleading. Always good to read the article before citation.
Interesting commentary. A current state of "not terminated" is factually accurate. A criticism on my citation would be wholly inaccurate.

...Reference post #69 in this thread.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #83
It may be factually accurate but it is also misleading. Your statement is made in a context indicating the matter is resolved.

Stating fact in a context that provides insufficient information can be misleading. In this case, your statement is misleading.

You state he was not terminated. Although accurate you fail to advise that the matter is ongoing and he may yet be terminated.

Nemo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,327 Posts
It may be factually accurate but it is also misleading.
My response was 3 whole words. There wasn't sufficient wiggle room for it to be misleading about the fact that termination had not occurred at the time of my posting. In fact it did not need such qualifiers simply because it was a statement of fact.

Your statement is made in a context indicating the matter is resolved.
The context was 3 words. In the present tense. Offering no other statement, opinion, or promise of finality. Any other inference was yours.

Stating fact in a context that provides insufficient information can be misleading. In this case, your statement is misleading.
I was not refuting whether or not Mr Barron was at the center of a controversy. I was refuting that he had been terminated.

You state he was not terminated. Although accurate you fail to advise that the matter is ongoing and he may yet be terminated.
In this particular case, a curt inaccurate (seemingly rhetorical) question was raised. A curt response was given with citation link to allow the reader to inform themselves. I did not narrowly and selectively quote or misquote the article. If you feel mislead that Mr. Barron is not currently terminated then I can offer no remedy for you. If, on the other hand, you felt confused or mislead that Mr. Barron had been terminated, then I hope you found my proffered link informative and helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,977 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,415 Posts
Well sir, it matters much to me what your opinion about Trump's comments rising to an high crimes and misdemeanors is. You come across as having an higher than average intellect, you're a lawyer and some of your posts lead me to consider my positions on issues.
One doesn't require a "higher than average intellect" nor a law degree to read a speech and determine its substance. I and many others have read Trump's entire speech and found no incitement or provocation in it. Your opinion is your opinion regardless what others may feel about it. There's nothing wrong with respecting another's views but there's no need to sell yourself short. I'm not a big admirer of pedestals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,415 Posts
#2: Secondly, should we take into account the gullibility, ignorance, preexisting anger, stupidity, or tinfoil-hat paranoia of the members of his audience?
Pretty broad brush you're using for the several hundred thousand people who were there, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,415 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,415 Posts
Sorry moe, they got you on this one. As soon as I read your post I knew you were toast. Make a note for future reference.
Um, no. I said what I meant and my friends Merriam-Webster agree with my usage of the term. Whether the three of you accept it or not isn't my problem. I'm sure I'll use it again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,415 Posts
Trump has not produced credible proof of the election fraud claims he has repeatedly made about Georgia. The few pieces of "evidence" he has produced with respect to Georgia have been thoroughly debunked. No credible counterclaim has been made against those debunkings either.
Trump has produced credible proof of fraud. Hundreds if not thousands of pieces. The fact that they have not yet been allowed their day in court does not mean they are "debunked." Except in the view of the left media, which is their normal position on anything Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimBob

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #91
Your buddies got it right in interpretation but wrong on fact. Use it again and you will be in error again.

Nemo [-X
 

·
PawPaw x 3
Joined
·
8,309 Posts
One doesn't require a "higher than average intellect" nor a law degree to read a speech and determine its substance. I and many others have read Trump's entire speech and found no incitement or provocation in it. Your opinion is your opinion regardless what others may feel about it. There's nothing wrong with respecting another's views but there's no need to sell yourself short. I'm not a big admirer of pedestals.
I listened to the entire speech and read it. I reread it and listened again. I cannot, like you, find any incitement or provocation in it. Nothing anyone here or elsewhere has said has persuaded me to change my mind. I do not put anyone on a pedestal as you insinuate. I do respect MP and his opinion for the reasons stated. As far as selling myself short, I will take that as a compliment as many think that I am a pompous ass who thinks way too much of himself and who thinks I am never wrong. :righton:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,415 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,415 Posts
As far as selling myself short, I will take that as a compliment as many think that I am a pompous ass who thinks way too much of himself and who thinks I am never wrong. :righton:
Just wait until you become an "old pompous ass." It's even more fun. :eek:ldtimer: :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bkite

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
13,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #95
As for me, I could care less. :cheers:
Well, you should care less. Your statement says you can, so you really should. Try it, it works.

At least you don't care fewer.

Nemo
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,068 Posts
Malum... Since you replied and formed your opinion on exerpts molded by a hostile press, sir, I find your comments singularly irrelevant. Since you have not listen to his speech and wrote you're biased opinion, you're no better than the Democrat mob that stood up there for his lynching.
One doesn't require a "higher than average intellect" nor a law degree to read a speech and determine its substance. I and many others have read Trump's entire speech and found no incitement or provocation in it. Your opinion is your opinion regardless what others may feel about it. There's nothing wrong with respecting another's views but there's no need to sell yourself short. I'm not a big admirer of pedestals.
I listened to the entire speech and read it. I reread it and listened again. I cannot, like you, find any incitement or provocation in it. Nothing anyone here or elsewhere has said has persuaded me to change my mind. I do not put anyone on a pedestal as you insinuate. I do respect MP and his opinion for the reasons stated. As far as selling myself short, I will take that as a compliment as many think that I am a pompous ass who thinks way too much of himself and who thinks I am never wrong. :righton:
Just to make this clear to all three of you - My earlier statements about Trump being lucky to escape impeachment based only on no longer being in office, had nothing at all to do with me examining his personal conduct or what he said in a speech. In fact, that is a question I only reluctantly answered because I was asked directly, even after I stated that my opinion of that did not matter, but that only the opinions of the Republican Senators who voted not to impeach mattered. There were enough votes to convict had Trump been in office when the trial was held. That is just a fact and has nothing to do with what you or I think of his speech.

Match 10 then comes along and says he thinks I molded my opinions based on biased press reports and that my opinion is irrelevant (and adds something about me being "no better than" a mob). As far as I can tell, he is responding to a post in which I said I had no opinion - so please remind me how my opinion can be irrelevant when I claimed not to have one?

Then moe piles on, perhaps mistaking Match10's post for me having expressed an opinion instead of looking to confirm whether I had posted an opinion.

I quoted Bkite only because he is responding to moe, and he originally asked me the question, and I just wanted to make it clear to all who are going back and forth on this that I really did not express an opinion about the President's speech. I still haven't read a transcript of it.

My earlier posts were based on the Republican Senators themselves - the votes were there had he been in office. I reiterate that Trump was lucky to escape conviction in the Senate, and nothing any of you say about having scoured the speech for evidence changes the number of Republican votes that would have gone the other way because they believe that he committed an impeachable offense. Even if I go and scour the speech and come to the same conclusion that the 3 of you have come to, that still would not change the number of votes. Match10, you really must not have read my posts in this thread carefully at all.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,068 Posts
It really does not matter what I think - it matters what the Senators thought, and I provided that above. Neither you nor I got to vote to convict or acquit.
Post #54 - this is my initial answer to Bkite, since Match10 must have missed it.
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
Were the votes really there to impeach if he was still president or was it just some saying they would've but couldn't because he was no longer president. I believe if he was still president then many of those that said that after the fact wouldn't have and still would not have voted to impeach.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,068 Posts
Were the votes really there to impeach if he was still president or was it just some saying they would've but couldn't because he was no longer president. I believe if he was still president then many of those that said that after the fact wouldn't have and still would not have voted to impeach.
Well, sure, they could be lying, but if you take them at their word, then, yes, the votes were clearly there to impeach.
 
81 - 100 of 101 Posts
Top