Posts made by jaroonn

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

I do read the Guardian, mostly for a laugh.

Stick with Tucker. His bank account needs dupes.

@raphjd Anecdotes of a few individuals; that is not an argument. You always cherry pick. I am not saying that all Republicans today are racists, but if you are racist, you are probably Republican.

I grew up in the US and most of my family was/is Republican. Don't tell me about racism.

@raphjd Tucker Carlson. "Lies" about Trump.

You are just hysterical.

btw: I watch Congressional hearings. The Republicans are truly something to behold: Hee Haw meets Dumb and Dumber. How' that Biden impeachment thing going for you? lol

You are always suggesting I read right-wing media. I do, in fact. That's why I know it's garbage. If you'd ever taken a journalism or history or poli sci course, you'd see that they follow the guidebook of propaganda and fear mongering to the letter.

Do you ever read Salon? The Guardian? Reuters?

But if that what appeals to you; if you think Moscow Tucker (who Putin absolutely humiliated) and those GOP clowns in Congress are really smart and doing a bang-up job, then like I said; there's no hope for you. You are so far down the rabbit hole, there's no coming back. I don't know what world you are going to live in in the future, but I am guessing you are going to be permanently pissed off. Right-wingers in the US live in such a bubble; I can assure you, most of the rest of the world think they are idiots.

@raphjd Like I said. It's a very sad world you've constructed for yourself.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

Every point you posted is 100% true.

I really feel sorry for you that you would think that there is an entire political movement dedicated to doing any of that. How scary the world must seem to you. I can only say, one more time, you are wrong. Progressives are not evil people trying to destroy the white man's world. We only want a world that is empathetic and fair to everyone. I know neither of us are religious, but I can assure you that progressives want what the biblical Jesus wanted: peace, love and understanding.

I have no more to say on the subject because you are destined to think what you want.

@Rapsey-0 said in Germany - The more things stay the same - Interior Minister wants to crush opposition:

I'm not from the US so my knowledge of its history is limited, but didn't they do the same thing with slavery? I.e. first oppose its abolition, then act like they've always been the ones who fought for the oppressed and the other side were the evil bigots? Please correct me if I'm wrong

You are correct that the Democratic Party of the 19th century was pro-slavery. Then for decades, after the Civil War, it was virtually impossible for a Republican to get elected in the South. This all changed in the 1960s when the Democrats championed civil rights and ending Jim Crow laws and segregation. This caused a split in the Democratic party, and for a time, southern democrats rebranded themselves as "Dixiecrats", but eventually just switched to the Republican party because they were more open to racists it would seem. Since then, the Republican party was evolved from being the party of limited government, to an umbrella organization of various "conservative" "Christian" "right-wing" causes.

Your error is that today's Democrats were not born in 1820

@Rapsey-0 The people we call "liberals" today simply write their own press releases. They select their words not based on what would be an accurate descriptor but based on how they want to be perceived. It's all about manipulating the population to go along with their agenda (i.e. propaganda). They're not even shy about it... Their "scholars" (read: ideologues) openly admit that such manipulation is not only excusable by the goodness of their goals, it's also incumbent on any "good person" to do this in order to help steer public opinion in the "right direction".

Just to name a few examples...

"Anti-racism" means racism (and anti-fascism means fascism).
"Gender-affirming care" means "mutilating and sterilizing vulnerable and confused people for profit".
"Welfare" means "we force you to hand over your money so we can redistribute it to those we deem more deserving", because who wouldn't want more welfare? (same goes for "social security")
"Diversity and inclusion" means "less white men and everyone must see things our way".
"Equity" means "discrimination based on immutable characteristics".
"Safe space" means "only those who agree with us are welcome".

Would you say that what you wrote above was written by someone who wants to have a serious discussion with someone from "the other side"? It's disingenuous and erroneous. Your "examples" are pure Murdochian, vilification designed to make progressives, who sincerely DO want to make the world a better and fairer place no matter what you might think, seem like evil manipulators who want to eliminate cis white men and mutilate children. Do you really believe that's true? If so, I can't imagine why no one takes you seriously.

Before you get up on your soap box, you might want to consider dusting it off.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

I know you are dumb, so I'll let you in on the secret.
The black boxes in the picture edits, so it can be published in public.

I don't know what's dumber. Your thinking you need to explain to me the obvious or your gullibility at accepting "reported" items from blogs as fact. You are beyond repair.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

You refuse to condemn putting porn in school libraries.
You refuse to condemn giving school kids wooden penises and gay porn.

What is wrong with you? You think I condone those things because I don't explicitly condemn them? I don't explicitly condemn genocide either; or wearing white after Labor Day. But I'd think that was obvious.

Your problem is you equate discussing gender and sexuality involves hardcore porn.

My actions?? You know about that, too?

And talk about pompous...wow. According to what you write anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot destined for eternal damnation.

I bit of self-awareness and reflection would serve you well.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

That being said, you do like K-5 kids being provided with porn.

Delusional. Using that same "logic", I could say that you support lynching. You are too much...you go overboard with your assumptions. It's exhausting and boring. I do only pop in here once in a while in the hope that there is some actual political discussion going on. Instead it's all MTG, Fox, Breitbart and the like. You seem to want to hate me and think I am the devil incarnate, and that's fine. But don't delude yourself by thinking you are in any way serious about discussing politics.

@raphjd I never called you "trailer trash." Never.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

You support books that discuss anal sex and other sexual stuff in elementary schools aka for 5-10yo kids.
You supported giving young school kids wooden penises in a recent thread.

No and no.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

but you have no fucking clue about me.

You, on the other hand, profess to have a window into my soul.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

You remind me of the chick on the Jubilee episode who claimed to be the superior intellect of the group because she had a PHD and worked for a company (not stated which) that was working on covid vaccines. Turns out, she had the lowest IQ of the group.

WTF?

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

You think it's ok to provide very young kids with porn, but that parents can't read that same shit out loud in public meetings.

Right. I have those exact works printed on a t-shirt and a bumper sticker.

Do you really wonder when you say ridiculous things like this that it's difficult to take you seriously? Why do you equate gender identification and sexual orientation with porn? You might as well just call me a "communist" and move on because you are incapable of serious conversation.

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

You are just a pompous twat, who likes to think that he's superior to those he disagrees with.

I'm surprised you didn't choke on that sentence. Your hypocrisy is stunning.

@Rapsey-0 said in The experts weigh in.:

I was mocking the tendency of people on the left to idolize Obama. Could you please explain how this is disparaging and to whom?

So in your dictionary "mocking" is not a form of "disparaging"? In that case, I was only "mocking" the tendency of trailer-people and the like to idolize Trump.

@raphjd Good.

https://www.salon.com/2024/02/22/james-comer-and-tucker-carlson-arent-fooled-by-russian-lies--they-are-complicit/?fbclid=IwAR1IFkPJPGHzPGgUJ3TGoJmr1SgHgpmu4C80KWfJ2RfpV7F_wpZH-dL93lc

@Rapsey-0 said in The experts weigh in.:

So if you ever see me saying something you think is dumb and you feel like telling me why.

"Just imagine what struggle session it must've been for them to resist putting Obama as #1"

Do you think that statement rises to the level of the discourse you are proposing? Or perhaps was it rather meant to disparage, by pure conjecture on your part, the far-right, rather than the "conservative-leaning" groups' favorite hit list: Obama, liberals, academics, etc.?

Think very carefully before you say "it was just a joke."

Good day, sir.