By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - The US Politics |OT|

EricHiggin on 16 July 2019
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

The definition says nothing about the giver.

Well there you go, another way in which to point out something bad so you don't have to acknowledge the good.

How, in any stretch of the imagination, is that vague slogan meant to be a rebuttal to anything?

You have long abandoned actually trying to have an argument here. If you have nothing of merit to say, feel free to say nothing.

Ever wonder if Trump is thinking he'll respect the National Parks Services when people stop going against his mission statement?



PS1   - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.

PS2  - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.

PS3   - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.

PS4   - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.

PRO  -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.

PS5   - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.

PRO  -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.

Around the Network
sundin13 on 16 July 2019
EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

How, in any stretch of the imagination, is that vague slogan meant to be a rebuttal to anything?

You have long abandoned actually trying to have an argument here. If you have nothing of merit to say, feel free to say nothing.

Ever wonder if Trump is thinking he'll respect the National Parks Services when people stop going against his mission statement?

Oh man, you got me with that one. Its not often a post on here elicits that hearty of a chuckle.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Trump's mission statement is?



EricHiggin on 16 July 2019
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Ever wonder if Trump is thinking he'll respect the National Parks Services when people stop going against his mission statement?

Oh man, you got me with that one. Its not often a post on here elicits that hearty of a chuckle.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Trump's mission statement is?



PS1   - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.

PS2  - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.

PS3   - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.

PS4   - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.

PRO  -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.

PS5   - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.

PRO  -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.

sundin13 on 16 July 2019
EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Oh man, you got me with that one. Its not often a post on here elicits that hearty of a chuckle.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Trump's mission statement is?

Yes, like they told me on day one of Mission Statement 101: Be sure to make your mission statement as vague and nebulous as possible so it can never really be implemented or used to direct policy.

C'mon that is a marketing slogan, not a mission statement. You can do better than that.



EricHiggin on 16 July 2019
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Yes, like they told me on day one of Mission Statement 101: Be sure to make your mission statement as vague and nebulous as possible so it can never really be implemented or used to direct policy.

C'mon that is a marketing slogan, not a mission statement. You can do better than that.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-best-5-worst-mission-statements-americas-top-brands-bosch%C3%A9

“To be a company that inspires and fulfills your curiosity.” – Sony

“To be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products.” – Disney



PS1   - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.

PS2  - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.

PS3   - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.

PS4   - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.

PRO  -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.

PS5   - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.

PRO  -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.

Around the Network
Puppyroach on 16 July 2019
KLAMarine said:

Biggerboat1 said:

I already said previously "If you think Trump donating a completely insignificant amount of money (relative to his wealth), which he actually promised to do on his campaign trail (if he was doing it out of benevolence, why tell anyone?) isn't self-serving then I don't know what to tell you..."

I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page... There's a difference between a skeptic & an ostrich! Anyway I'm gonna call it a day in regards to talking to you, but just so you know I actually appreciate your input to these topics as you argue your points so badly that you essentially advocate for the views you're opposing :)

It still doesn't explain why you go on to say the point about donating to a homeless person... But alas, I've officially given up on trying to make sense of your incoherent ramblings... Good day sir!

"I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page..."

>Something like that. I can't prove Trump gives to charity because he just wants the good PR.

I can't read minds.

Puppyroach said:

Seriously? You call yourself a skeptic and need him to use the word "race" in order to call him a racist? So, as long as he doesn´t use that specific word, even if he knows he is a racist, you cannot make that conclusion simply because he didn´t use that word?

If you sat in a jury, you wouldn´t be able to convict a burglar of a crime unless the burglar specifically says that he/she committed a burglary? You are incapable of drawing conclusions based on the evidence you have in front of you? In that case you have made it really easy for all the racists, fascists, anti-semites and bigots of the world. They simply just avoid certain words and they get a pass from you ;).

"Seriously? You call yourself a skeptic and need him to use the word "race" in order to call him a racist?"

>No, I need him to use someone's race as a means to insult them. Telling someone to go back to some country, fix its problems, and then return does not qualify.

"If you sat in a jury, you wouldn´t be able to convict a burglar of a crime unless the burglar specifically says that he/she committed a burglary?"

>A burglar can be found in possession of stolen property or caught in the act. Someone saying something without making any reference to race means they said something while never making any reference to race. As a skeptic, I need it to be there explicitly.

Paperboy_J said:
"The guy may be an asshole but that doesn't make him racist."

Does it really matter at this point? As if one is any better than the other? The guy is trash, plain and simple. I mean you're just splitting hairs at this point.

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

He was using his perception of their race (which doesn't have a clear definition) to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country. This is textbook racism where you divide people and assume different value to them.



sundin13 on 16 July 2019
EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Yes, like they told me on day one of Mission Statement 101: Be sure to make your mission statement as vague and nebulous as possible so it can never really be implemented or used to direct policy.

C'mon that is a marketing slogan, not a mission statement. You can do better than that.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-best-5-worst-mission-statements-americas-top-brands-bosch%C3%A9

“To be a company that inspires and fulfills your curiosity.” – Sony

“To be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products.” – Disney

"A mission statement should be unique enough to be memorable and short enough to remember. Unfortunately, some top brands just don't get it. They try and be inspirational but come across as cryptic. They attempt to be aspirational but it isn't memorable or shareable.

Some profoundly disappointing mission statements from major brands …

“To be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products.” – Disney

“To be a company that inspires and fulfills your curiosity.” – Sony"

Yeah, I agree. If that is truly Trump's mission statement, it does fall in league with these "profoundly disappointing mission statements" that are listed among the five worst mission statements of major brands.

To quote your source again:

The 5 aspects of an effective Mission Statement:

1.     Extremely clear

2.     Answers “What By When”

3.     Evolves with time

4.     Measurable

5.     Others-focused

However, if you want to play semantics, I'll rephrase my question. What are Trump's core purposes and goals defining his presidency that you feel people are "going against"?



EricHiggin on 16 July 2019
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-best-5-worst-mission-statements-americas-top-brands-bosch%C3%A9

“To be a company that inspires and fulfills your curiosity.” – Sony

“To be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products.” – Disney

"A mission statement should be unique enough to be memorable and short enough to remember. Unfortunately, some top brands just don't get it. They try and be inspirational but come across as cryptic. They attempt to be aspirational but it isn't memorable or shareable.

Some profoundly disappointing mission statements from major brands …

“To be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products.” – Disney

“To be a company that inspires and fulfills your curiosity.” – Sony"

Yeah, I agree. If that is truly Trump's mission statement, it does fall in league with these "profoundly disappointing mission statements" that are listed among the five worst mission statements of major brands.

To quote your source again:

The 5 aspects of an effective Mission Statement:

1.     Extremely clear

2.     Answers “What By When”

3.     Evolves with time

4.     Measurable

5.     Others-focused

However, if you want to play semantics, I'll rephrase my question. What are Trump's core purposes and goals defining his presidency that you feel people are "going against"?
EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

How, in any stretch of the imagination, is that vague slogan meant to be a rebuttal to anything?

You have long abandoned actually trying to have an argument here. If you have nothing of merit to say, feel free to say nothing.

Ever wonder if Trump is thinking he'll respect the National Parks Services when people stop going against his mission statement?

What you think about it is your own opinion, but it is what it is. Did I pique your curiosity?

Well that's likely the point of the statement being so vague now isn't it? It's whatever he wants it to be as long as he can justify it at that point in time. Not much different than orange man bad. Pretty simple statement but it seems to get the job done.



PS1   - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.

PS2  - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.

PS3   - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.

PS4   - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.

PRO  -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.

PS5   - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.

PRO  -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.

sundin13 on 16 July 2019
EricHiggin said:

What you think about it is your own opinion, but it is what it is. Did I pique your curiosity?

Well that's likely the point of the statement being so vague now isn't it? It's whatever he wants it to be as long as he can justify it at that point in time. Not much different than orange man bad. Pretty simple statement but it seems to get the job done.

You saying this is almost as strong of a condemnation of that slogan as I would have made, so I have nothing further to add.

These are strange conversations indeed, when you seem to repeatedly agree with me under the facade of argument.



KLAMarine on 16 July 2019
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Yet you wonder why some people are the way they are? Ever think that some people were reasonably or highly generous, only to have it thrown back in their face anyway because of whatever faults they may have? Ever feel yourself like you're not getting what you want out of something, so you stop caring as much or quit altogether? Why bother being generous if all you're going to get is hatred thrown at you for doing so, when all you may want is a little respect? Why bother acting the way people expect you to if you're never going to please them anyway? Why not just do whatever is best for you in that case?

Maybe Epstein did it out of guilt. Would that make it better? Knowing the good cause that money has helped, would you rather that money not have been accepted and let those who could have had better, suffer instead? Should the British have given back NA to the natives, or is the situation better off the way it is now? What saints we all are...

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

KLAMarine said:

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

You are not being a skeptic through this conversation. One of the key attributes of a skeptic is thinking and making well reasoned conclusions using the evidence that has been presented. Your entire argument rests upon the insistence that you do not believe you should be able to use your mind to make any conclusions that aren't laid out for you like a children's book.

That isn't being a skeptic, that is called being willfully ignorant.

If denying yourself the use of your mind is what it takes in order for you to justify Trump's words, I think that says all that needs to be said.

"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

Puppyroach said:
KLAMarine said:

"I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page..."

>Something like that. I can't prove Trump gives to charity because he just wants the good PR.

I can't read minds.

"Seriously? You call yourself a skeptic and need him to use the word "race" in order to call him a racist?"

>No, I need him to use someone's race as a means to insult them. Telling someone to go back to some country, fix its problems, and then return does not qualify.

"If you sat in a jury, you wouldn´t be able to convict a burglar of a crime unless the burglar specifically says that he/she committed a burglary?"

>A burglar can be found in possession of stolen property or caught in the act. Someone saying something without making any reference to race means they said something while never making any reference to race. As a skeptic, I need it to be there explicitly.

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

He was using his perception of their race (which doesn't have a clear definition) to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country. This is textbook racism where you divide people and assume different value to them.

"He was using his perception of their race"

>How do you know this? What if he was using their names?

"to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country."

>And he was also asking them to return at some point. "Then come back and show us how it is done."