The libtards are like the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". They attack EVERYTHING Trump does, regardless of what he does.
Sadly, this is true. And it annoys the shit out of me.
But since you mention it, the same shit happened with Obama.
Remember the flag lapel controversy? Smoking cigarettes? Half-salute to a soldier? The birth certificate fiasco?
Your party is just as much a part of the culture of outrage as your opponents.
Any candidate would gladly listen to damning evidence against their opponent, that's what you try to do all day long, regardless of where it comes from or who is giving it. There is nothing wrong with that... If someone from Malaysia or Japan or where ever said they had a picture of Hillary killing a baby, I'd look.
It's against federal election law to accept contributions from a foreign government as a campaign.
The amount of mental gymnastics the guys on this forum have to do to defend this…
Since Trump Jr. released those emails, I have been checking Breitbart off and on to see how they could possibly spin this. There were two relevant articles. One was a huge collection of celebrity tweets bashing Trump and his son. The other was about Trump praising his son's "transparency". As of this morning, there aren't any articles about it on the front page. I guess that explains why there isn't any collective agreement on how to defend what Trump Jr. did. No one is being spoon fed talking points from major right wing news sources.
The capacity for critical thought and objectivity in this country is going down the shitter. Not that it was ever in a great place to begin with.
This thread, nor any other thread, benefits from your **superfluous spam. **
I just got done posting a long and very meaningful post in this thread.. it's all ready for you nasty, parasitic moonbats to give a "thumbs down" and tag it with inane replies.
You legit start new topics to respond to people pages-deep in other topics. I can only assume for whatever the Disney Dollar reputation reward is on this forum.
Here's my response to your meaningful post.
You don't seem to know what the purpose of insurance is. People don't sign up for insurance so they can have some glorified middle man handle their transactions. If it worked in real life how you believe it works, of course no one would want it.
You also must have a terribly myopic view of life if the furthest you can quantify the cost of medical procedures is the amount of time it takes to perform them, like they're installing a patio or something.
I nearly put in the effort to explain all of this, but you're the self-proclaimed genius with the big opinions. You could at least do some research before you shout them from the mountain tops.
Don't agree with the blacks are oppressed narrative, that makes you a white supremacist. :crazy2:
No debating what I said, just call me a racist. Does anyone really expect civility around here?
Show me where I called you a white supremacist. Or a racist. The biggest leap I made was saying you're possibly the type of person who'd try to argue that racism doesn't exist anymore.
This is surprisingly toned down from your usual embellishments and charades. Thank you for that.
Do you mean how you called me a white supremacist/racist in the other thread because I didn't buy the liberal narrative?
No, but since you wanted clarification, you're demonstrating exactly the type of behavior I was referring to.
This thread is not getting enough coverage.
Thanks for this, pppucci.
When it comes down to it, this is the ENTIRE reason you vote one way or the other, whether you would have sex with someone. Deep down, that's what it's all about. It's easy for the media to make Trump look unsexy as an older gentlemen, and easier still, to make Obama look sexy because he's charming and younger. It really has nothing to do with politics, this is why Macron won. You don't care about right and wrong when you hate on Trump. You just don't think he's sufficient enough to be a sexual partner, and so you are automatically deposed to think negatively about him. This is what I really despise about people on the left. They think with their dicks. If it was twenty years ago and he was younger you would have jumped for him no matter what he said. It's really sad, but it is the basis for which most of you vote. You want young and sexy and you hate him just because you wouldn't suck his dick. It's all you base your life on, like this website. Yes, no, to the left, to the right. It's unfortunate but it's reality, and it's like me going around telling people how horrible smoking and drinking and eating meat is for you. You just don't care. The only thing that matters is sex, it has nothing to do with actual issues. That's how people work. I don't really think people get the ways that they are manipulated at this point, like putting a big fat black woman judge up there who doesn't even have a clue, but because of your past, you just accept what she says. It's really sad that people can't get past their indifference and their judgements based on physical perceptions.
These projections
classic mhorndisk
(also "indifference" means lack of concern)
There were all sorts of allegations about the election being rigged by different groups - including the DNC that blatantly stole the nomination away from Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump pointed out how their was fraud on BOTH sides of the campaign which was all working to prevent him from being the nominee, and after being the nominee to prevent him from being elected. Trump also pointed out that the election was rigged against Bernie. It's safe to say that there was a lot of allegations being made, some of them provable, some needed to be investigated, etc.
BUT Obama did NOTHING!
Why?
Because it was universally expected that Hillary would win the election easily.. in a landslide. Obama wasn't about to risk doing anything at all because that might change the lead that Hillary THOUGHT she had.
In other words, rather than do the right thing, and what he was obligated to do. Obama chose to IGNORE all the allegations just to play it safe and preserve Hillary's lead. Well. that plan BACKFIRED!
This is surprisingly toned down from your usual embellishments and charades. Thank you for that.
Another possibility is he chose not to rock the boat. I'm not 100% convinced he was pro-Hillary as much as he was/is anti-Trump. Creating a potential divide in the party at the time might've seemed like a bigger risk that Trump would be elected than just allowing the DNC to do what they did.
The idealist in me wishes he said something. I've disliked Hillary since she started her campaign.
What I don't understand is: when this argument plays out, and the other side says "you're not mentioning anything about poverty or how blacks are treated in society" etc. etc. People like you insist that "racism is over" "blacks have the same fair chance as everyone else." I guess because no one shouts racial slurs in public anymore? Unless you're at a tea party rally maybe.
But here's the thing. After that tirade, your biases are pretty clear. It's safe to say that in a hypothetical situation where you're in charge of hiring people, the only thing stopping you from choosing a white person over a black one every time is what you'd call "government interference" or "SJW liberal cuckoldery."
Something else that's disproportionate in our country is the abundance of power and influence white people have. And please, as far as this post goes, understand I'm not stating this as a moral right or wrong that needs to be fixed, just an objective premise. That said, many of these people hold the same biases you have, despite the fact that they aren't openly petitioning for separate water fountains. They make decisions all the time that affect who gets what job, who is eligible for loans, and who is affected by what law. So for you to state the color of their skin as the only relevant piece of information here is a complete joke.
Why should I bother, you're gonna excuse it away anyway.
This one sentence exemplifies our shitty political system so well.
"IT" refers to rule violations by liberals while crying about rule violations.
Let's use your example of Fred and Sutie.
They get into a slagging match. Sutie and other liberals will complain in the forums, the help desk, reported topics and site email. I'll be called "alt-right" and accused of abusing my powers and whatnot. Fred won't complain and just get on with it.
Why are you insistent on limiting it to "Trumptard" vs "libtard"? Expand it out and you'll see that both sides are pretty equal in name calling.
I was called a racist simply because I pointed out 2 proven lies told by Rep John Lewis. I didn't mention race, just that he lied. That was enough to make me a racist. Why do you want to ignore things like that, if you want to talk about facts.
raphjd, liberals and many moderates go to other "institutions" within GT in the hope of fairness with their issues, because your observations about who-is-doing-what in Politics & Debate are so consistently skewed. As the overall topic here remains Civility, there are surely other curse words where a count would confirm that cons surpass libs by a large margin. I mean, it's not as if you've called me a fucker…
Oh wait, you did.
19-140
They might be (let's be honest, they are) skewed observations, but they are just observations. I believe raph is super lax with enforcing the rules, which I have no problem with. What would be an issue is if he started punishing one side based on these skewed observations. I haven't seen even a hint of that. But please post it if you have.
**So tell me again how it's the conservatives who are homophobes. **
Does the existence of liberal homophobia make conservative homophobia disappear?
Did I say that?
Yea, I mean, when you say "tell me how conservatives are homophobes", you are absolutely implying that there is no conservative homophobia. Or that liberals deserve the brunt of the issue.
I just want to clarify a few things.
I personally don't report or downvote anything. Ever. I strongly believe everyone should be allowed to state their opinions. No matter how extreme opinions are, everyone should be engaged intellectually, not muted. This is why I don't really get caught up in arguments about who breaks the rules.
That said, my reason for making this topic is not to accuse people of breaking rules. If they did, I don't care. I made it because I have a lot of appreciation for real debate. And I think the two users I mentioned are not genuine. I believe they've made these personas to upset people. Which is fine. If that's what they want to do, more power to them. I'm not going to report that either. It was just a warning to people who might be taking them seriously. Recognize that you're arguing with a character, and it's fairly likely they don't actually believe what they're saying.
Afraid you might see something you might not like? Perhaps muslims acting like entitled cunts?
TBH, I'm like inches away from not giving a shit anymore. On top of that, I don't want to look up stuff on your behalf and respond to it, only find out it's not even the thing you were talking about. If you had any conviction in what you're saying, you could at least carry the burden of proof of your own arguments.
Normally I'd just keep it to myself and move on, but I'd like to save some of the more functioning forum-goers some unnecessary stress.
At the very least, Frederick and mhorndisk are straight up trolls. In the sense that they're behaving like rabid Trump supporters on a gay forum for behind the scenes chuckles. Possibly raphjd too. Some (most) of the stuff they say is borderline caricature and completely written for provocation and outrage.
Just consider this a possibility before you respond to anything they say.
Watch the city council video on YouTube. Muslims getting hysterical because they can't use sharia law in Irvine Texas.
Nah, I've done enough researching on your part. I'd be happy to watch or read specifics if you link, though.
No self respecting Republican would ever want anything to do with Trump. That's why he has so many supporters.
He has supporters because they want someone who is stubborn and won't back down against evil liberals. Even in the face of facts, reason, and rationality.
Obama lied. Lots of people saw huge rises in their health insurance bills.
Rises that would've happened with or without Obamacare.
Tim Farron finally quit as leader of the UK's LibDem party (leftists). He is a homophobe and religious nutter, yet his party supported him as leader.
So tell me again how it's the conservatives who are homophobes.
Does the existence of liberal homophobia make conservative homophobia disappear?
Both articles show that muslims are butt hurt and hysterical that they can't use sharia law in Texas.
Clearly the answer to my question is no, you did not read your own article.