War Room Lounge v97: Jesus Christ, you're even pedantic with foreplay.

[Jack V Savage]

That isn't anything approaching an exoneration of your - objectively obvious - fanatical defenses of Clinton.

There are no fanatical defenses. You can find me saying that she didn't have multiple people (or anyone) bumped off, that her highly rated charity wasn't some kind of front, that she wasn't running a child sex-trafficking ring, etc. If that's what you consider "fanatical defenses," I'd submit that you are the fanatic.

I never said that you claimed she was wholly different or a much better candidate. I said your defenses were unreasonable, which they were and continue to be.

You'll have to explain how one can be a fanatical supporter of someone while thinking that that same person is competent but interchangeable in her role. You're glossing over some major tension in your positions.

That your retreat from your original position - that it was delusional to point to the reality of public discourse and political optics as a reason to excuse casual voters thinking Trump was more of a dove than Clinton - has reached full sprint goes to show how shamelessly dishonest and self-serving your continued nagging of me is.

I don't think you know what "original" means. You're really focused on that one argument that isn't the original one or central to my objection about your conduct (which has involved repeated lying about my position).

You'd rather bitch at me until the end of time than own up to the fact that, even just this once, you let your political biases cause you to fall into an embarrassing gaffe.

It's not a gaffe to think that it was ridiculous and unreasonable to think that Trump (Trump!) was more dovish than Clinton. That's a true statement, but it is not the source of the conflict here, as it A) wasn't that big a deal and B) *followed* your decision to go full Anung.

You are very easily the most dishonest poster on the board's left side, and it's not particularly close, even with posters of lesser knowledge or intelligence includedThat you think you can believably posture yourself as an advocate of truth is astonishing. But, frankly, I don't think that you really think that.

Only if you define "dishonest" as "disagreeing with Berniebots." In fact, you have told two lies in this thread, and you have never produced any evidence of me lying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Blackadder is a sitcom. The Young Ones. Red Dwarf. Fawlty Towers.

I don't know as much about the British model. Might it be related to public funding?

There were more than a few others, imo. Night Court, Barney Miller, WKRP, All in the Family, Maude, and MASH, and there are some gems that I consider great that appear to be lesser considered ones like Third Rock from the Sun, Kate and Allie, and One Day at a Time. Of course, I was weaned on Happy Days so perhaps my glasses have somewhat of a colorful tint. Either way, it seems silly to act like nothing good was on before Seinfeld came along.

Yeah, I said a few others. But I'd guess that most people's lists of the 20 best American sitcoms would have at least 15 that debuted after Seinfeld.

 

[Sketch]

I would? Are you projecting again?
Like you could project a movie onto that guy's forehead with room to spare.

I'm blessed with a rather less evident decline in coverage starting from the back.

You have a great hairline actually. I hope when I am 60 years old I still have hair like you do.

 

[Gregolian]

@PolishHeadlock2 @Falsedawn @Fawlty @HockeyBjj

TIME TO KILL SOME HELL SPAWN. Hopefully Bethesda doesn't fuck this up the way they fucked up like, all of last year.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

@Rob Battisti @superking

Did you see GoPuff just got $1B in funding?

A couple of Drexel stoners under the age of 30 are now running a billion dollar tech startup

 

[Trotsky]

There are no fanatical defenses. You can find me saying that she didn't have multiple people (or anyone) bumped off, that her highly rated charity wasn't some kind of front, that she wasn't running a child sex-trafficking ring, etc. If that's what you consider "fanatical defenses," I'd submit that you are the fanatic.

Holy strawman. Just truly shameless.

Those are completely reasonable defenses, and ones that I both agree with and have made myself. In fact, you'll find posts by me making even more aggressive defenses of Clinton, such as that she was the subject of extreme partisan smearing, that her campaign was grievously injured by sexism, that she was an exceptionally qualified candidate and is an exceptionally intelligent person, etc.

Your defenses of freaking out about the mention of it being reasonable for casual voters to confuse Trump as being the more doveish candidate in the 2016 general, despite my having proven to you that it was a strong current in public opinion and even in sophisticated political discourse, was fanatical. You kicked off the dialogue by calling me detached from reality for observing objective reality.

Only if you define "dishonest" as "disagreeing with Berniebots." In fact, you have told two lies in this thread, and you have never produced any evidence of me lying.

And, again, you needing to lean on childish political pejoratives speaks volumes of your maturity and earnestness.

 

[Andy Capp]

Was there really anything worth watching besides married with children or mash?

Married with Children was fantastic. Thanks for adding that. But yes, there was.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't know as much about the British model. Might it be related to public funding?

Possibly, hadn't thought about it. My favourite Australian sitcom DAAS Kapital was publicly funded (although that was early '90s).
Likewise later ones like Pizza and Housos.
The commercial ones like Kingswood Country were passable at best.
I rarely find that style of American humour funny though. I don't find Seinfeld funny.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your defenses of freaking out about the mention of it being reasonable for casual voters to confuse Trump as being the more doveish candidate in the 2016 general, despite my having proven to you that it was a strong current in public opinion and even in sophisticated political discourse, was fanatical. You kicked off the dialogue by calling me detached from reality for observing objective reality.

Again, you were wrong about that one, but that's a small matter in the larger issue of your dishonest smear campaign (trying to invalidate whatever arguments I make not by referencing any potential flaws in them but by writing me off as some kind of fanatic).

And, again, you needing to lean on childish political pejoratives speaks volumes of your maturity and earnestness.

I note a conspicuous lack of any substantive response here. You were caught lying twice in this thread, and your response was to accuse me of being generally dishonest with no reference to anything that can be examined. Going full Anung (or Trump) with that stuff.

 

[Fawlty]

@PolishHeadlock2 @Falsedawn @Fawlty @HockeyBjj

TIME TO KILL SOME HELL SPAWN. Hopefully Bethesda doesn't fuck this up the way they fucked up like, all of last year.

All I care about is new Skyrim game tbh

 

[HereticBD]

So...what was @Trotsky's alleged last account? Has @Jack V Savage ever clarified this?

 

[Gregolian]

All I care about is new Skyrim game tbh

Given how Fallout 4 was a wet fart, how they completely FUCKED UP the Wolfenstein Youngblood game, and then the abomination that Fallout 76 was....

I'm super SUPER fucking worried TESVI is gonna be a fucking medieval version of a looter shooter.

 

[Trotsky]

Again, you were wrong about that one, but that's a small matter in the larger issue of your dishonest smear campaign (trying to invalidate whatever arguments I make not by referencing any potential flaws in them but by writing me off as some kind of fanatic).

Hmm, I had never once referred to you as a lunatic whatsoever until you made the lunatic-like heel-turn in re the foreign policy optics. I defended HockeyBJJ's claim that you're a Hillary supporter because, objectively, you were. You supported, voted for, and continually defend Clinton more than any poster on the board. Frankly, I didn't think (and neither did @HockeyBjj) it was remotely controversial or provocative to say you were a Clinton supporter.

However, yes, I do think people now have an excuse to write you off as a fanatic on the subject.

 

[Trotsky]

So...what was @Trotsky's alleged last account? Has @Jack V Savage ever clarified this?

@Greoric

 

[Ruprecht]

@Greoric

 

[Sketch]

Blackadder is a sitcom. The Young Ones. Red Dwarf. Fawlty Towers.

Red dwarf is great. Very underrated.

 

[Fawlty]

Given how Fallout 4 was a wet fart, how they completely FUCKED UP the Wolfenstein Youngblood game, and then the abomination that Fallout 76 was....

I'm super SUPER fucking worried TESVI is gonna be a fucking medieval version of a looter shooter.

I'm confident in the passion of their designers (in every area) and super confident in the Elder Scrolls itself as a setting. What I'm not confident in is all of the back-end bullshit from corporate, which sounds ridiculous to say considering what Bethesda had always been until after the success of FO3 (and Skyrim of course).

FO4 was in and of itself a damn fine game, it just wasn't really a Fallout game. imo. Choice didn't matter, voiced protagonist, and main quest on rocket rails. All fully anti-Fallout. The MQ itself was perfectly fine though, even a bit compelling. FO76 does not exist, kind of like your brother whose birth certificate is still in that little drawer but nobody ever talks about him.

It's even hard for me to imagine how they might possibly fuck up TES. But who knows...

I don't know about Doom and Wolfenstein and stuff, because I'm not into those kinds of games, but I believe you lol.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hmm, I had never once referred to you as a lunatic whatsoever until you made the lunatic-like heel-turn in re the foreign policy optics. I defended HockeyBJJ's claim that you're a Hillary supporter because, objectively, you were. You supported, voted for, and continually defend Clinton more than any poster on the board. Frankly, I didn't think (and neither did @HockeyBjj) it was remotely controversial or provocative to say you were a Clinton supporter.

However, yes, I do think people now have an excuse to write you off as a fanatic on the subject.

This is the exchange you're referring to:

I remember in 2016, I'd say something like, "Both Clinton and Sanders are OK. Some advantages and disadvantages for each one, both more than good enough, and not much difference in actual policy." And then Bernie fans would respond, "so you're saying you hate Bernie and want him to die and love Clinton with the heat of a million suns?!?! Fuck you!!!"

You were the biggest Hil Dawg fan on this forum in 2016.

I don't think you said anything in favor of Bernie other than "He'd be better than Trump"

If the claim that my current position (as reflected in that post) is revisionism, which was the clear implication, the posts I provided of me saying the same thing in 2015 and 2016 should be regarded as definitive proof that Hockey was wrong. But again, you defend it because you think it's easier to just lie about me than to address points that I make.

 

[Wet Blanket]

I do, but there were very few good sitcoms before 1990 (Taxi, Cheers, MTM, and a few others). The model changed from "Least Objectionable Program" to targeting a smaller group of devoted fans.

I've been thinking of picking up a Taxi box set. Was really pleased with the Roseanne series.

 

[Ruprecht]

Red dwarf is great. Very underrated.

I'm a sucker for scifi. It's funny how much the acting improved over the seasons though.
I still think of Frank Mir as Arnold Rimmer beefed up.