Posts made by zerocoo666

@raphjd:

:police: Hit that report button and I'll have a look at it.   :police:

How is it off topic?   I'm just showing the lunacy of the left and identity politics.

Remember, it's your side that set a building on fire, with people in it, to prevent wrong speak.  It's your side that covers your faces to have violent protests.    It's your side that down votes ANYONE (left or right) who condemns the violence.

That's part and parcel with the problem as it seems to be on the forum though–you actively participate in the forum with a clear bias to your posting. I've actually never been part of a politics forum in which mods were allowed to participate like you have. Do you not see an issue with participating like you do in maintaining a semblance of balance though?

If you're showing the lunacy of the left, I'd hope you'd even remotely approach something that's real instead of making up a bunch of ridiculous nonexistent stuff.

@raphjd:

Ah, typical leftist.    Now she only matters if she has published "scholarly works".

Always moving the goal posts.

You do know that now you are required to only post things from those who have had "scholarly work" published and peer reviewed.

I do.

@Dene:

@Frederick:

@Dene:

@Frederick:

Although I'm not a liberal, it is possible to be liberal and be credible (believe it or not!)
However, these days, the problem isn't so much the liberals / democrats, it is the massive influx of libtards that just make things, up, twist them, and spew hateful, anti-Trump crap every day, ad nauseum!

People can have differences of opinion and both sides have good points and credibility.. but that isn't happening.
Truth, accuracy, and fairness have been cast aside by the libtards.  They will say and fabricate anything to try and undermine the government.

I can concisely tell you what is going on:
In wars, when one side has lost, sometimes instead of surrendering, they do what is called "scorched earth" and destroy their own country rather than allow the winners to take it.  This is exactly what the libtards are doing.  Even though they might SAY that they accept that Trump won, they do NOT accept it.  They do NOT want Trump to succeed at anything.  The libtards and snowflakes would rather see the country fail than allow Trump to fix it.

Mate

I am not sure the 1st 3 times I told you but I am telling you again.. left bash all you freaking want but PLEASE stop using the word libtard - it just makes you look like an ass

What word do you use to delineate liberals and democrats who act and behave like whining, malcontent, crazy, lying, delusional babies?

Call them "Modern Liberals" like Raph does - or use any generic term like "Capital L Liberal" or other stuff - point is if you have to insult people you do not know just to make a point then you have already lost

It's very frustrating. I'd appreciate having an honest political discussion especially from an international perspective but so much of the rhetoric here is toxic and very difficult to cut through. To your point, Frederick's instant jump to using the term libtard removes any credibility his argument has.

@raphjd:

The difference is, I'm not PRO anyone.   I want equality.   Feminists want special rights, that's why they have fought against making sex crime laws in the UK gender neutral 3 times over the last 15 years and why they have been fighting against equalizing the retirement age.    Yeah, I guess that makes me a woman hater because I want them to be equal to men.

It's not that hard.   Chick with a dick, dude with a vag.

Blair White and Skylar are examples of full trans.

Elliot Cope, Milo Stewart and Dennis Riley are examples of fake trans, aka attention whores.

Do you cite any of your sources when you make claims? That would be immensely helpful because I have no idea where you get this from.

Do you have the qualifications to declare who is real or fake trans? Also, who cares?

@raphjd:

Clearly you have to be sent to a re-education center because you appear to be wrong thinking.   Be careful what you say or someone might burn your house down for wrong speak.

I'm not claiming to be one of those loser ass wipe "traditional" trans clowns, like Blair White and Skylar.  HELL NO!!!   I'm a modern SJW trans person, therefore you need to worship me as a hero.

This post is taking ages to type because I keep changing genders, so I have to keep changing outfits to match.

Question; what eye shadow goes with being a Zimbabwean SatNav a-sexual?

Again this has nothing to do with enforcement of outdated laws that forcibly segregate bathrooms by gender. Is there a moderator to point out that you've gone far off topic?

@raphjd:

@royalcrown89:

@zerocoo666:

@raphjd:

Communists are liberals, just further left than usual.

You should love the UK's Labour Party.   It's run by a commie who supports terrorists, while claiming to be about peace.

How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?

He has no intention on addressing your concerns because all he cares about is constantly dragging people for not having his viewpoint. If you noticed, he completely shifted from everything you brought up just so he can condemn those in the UK's Labour Party.

He's a commie.  So I pointed to the most famous commie in the UK at the moment.

Lot's of commies at the various riots who think violence is always the answer, as long as they are the ones doing it.

I already addressed his point about name calling.   He's very one sided in his comments.

Gracious, if you think Corbyn's a communist, where politically do you place actual communists?

I was certainly one-sided in my comments because the comments on this board are rather one-sided. However, if it makes you feel better, I find it annoying when people call Trump silly names too, but not out of disrespect–it's mostly because it makes them look unhinged and failing to make any real point.

@raphjd:

Search for her on YouTube.

Feel free to cite her scholarly works.

@raphjd:

You claim I hate women because of my views on feminism and because I don't want to fuck partial trans people.   What more is there?

OH YEAH, I didn't want Hillary to be President.   Of course to fit your narrative, you have to ignore that I named other women I would love to have as President.

Nah, I don't think you're a misogynist for not wanting Hillary to be president. It isn't as simple as just wanting a woman to be in a specific role to actually be pro-woman.

What the heck is a "partial trans person" anyway?

@raphjd:

Communists are liberals, just further left than usual.

You should love the UK's Labour Party.   It's run by a commie who supports terrorists, while claiming to be about peace.

How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?

@raphjd:

LOL, another slow SJW.   Everything is fluid, according to you SJWs.

Don't judge me, I'm just following the rules you lunatics made.

Hell, I'm feeling like a 43yo Chinese pansexual water bottle now.

It's your job to heap praise on me now, for being such a hero.

I get what you're saying, I just don't get how it's productive to the conversation or how it relates to the issue of legally enforcing gender segregation by bathroom

@raphjd:

Clearly you are a liberal.   I say that based on the 2 examples you posted of name calling.

Liberals have done more than their fair share of name calling.

I don't like the idea of having sex with a shemale, so I am a woman hater.   Ironically, I'm also a woman hater for not wanting to have sex with a dude with a vag.

Don't agree with SJWs and you get labeled an 'ist or 'phobe or Nazi.

You and I have spoken previously, and I have made clear to you that I am a communist, and not a liberal. How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?

@raphjd:

OK, gotcha.

Pointing out the lies of feminism, is hating women.

Not wanting to fuck a partial trans person is woman hating.

etc

etc

etc

I suppose you could just misunderstand and misstate the argument as it has been laid out for you and act as though that's what's being said, sure. But this isn't very productive in terms of discussion or debate, is it?

@raphjd:

WOW, JUST FUCKING WOW!!!!

Not wanting to fuck a chick with a dick or dude with a vag is now, according to SJWs,   WOMAN HATING!!!!!!!

SJWs never cease to amaze me with their crackhead logic.

"You are a Nazi because you won't fuck her vag!!!".     "You hate women because you won't fuck a chick with a dick!!!".

As it has been painfully and explicitly spelled out for you previously, it is not inherently woman hating to not want to fuck a trans person or a woman, but when you pair it with your long and storied history of misogyny, it's simply more evidence thereof.

@aadam101:

I can't find any Clinton quotes.  I'm sure Frederick has plenty of them though right?

If what I posted was "bullshit on all accounts" I'm certain I'll be seeing a bunch of verified primary sources linked to everything I've said.

@Frederick:

@Loki100:

@Frederick:

Here's the facts:
Hillary ILLEGALLY kept a server in her house containing hundreds of thousands of digital documents (which is a Federal Crime).

Nope. It wasn't a crime to have a private server (which, by the by, the government doesn't differentiate from a private email address) in the first place. In fact, the number of people who have private email addresses in government is… more or less everyone of note. Including most people in the current administration. Nor was any

@Frederick:

These documents included those from her tenure as Secretary of State during the 2008-2012 tenure of Osama (and Benghazi).
Her house was not a secure location, nor was it safe from cyber attacks, nor did she have permission to do that.
The people Hillary hired to set up her server and maintain it.. and access it, and DELETE things had NO security clearance.
Congress ORDERED Hillary to turn over 30,000 e-mails from that server.
AFTER being ORDERED to turn over the e-mails, Hillary hired a private company with no security clearance to destroy the evidence.
Those actions amount to treason, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, and other crimes - all of which should have her in prison.

Of course none of that ever happened. What actually happened was that she went over all the emails and turned over all the ones that were work related and deleted all the ones that were personal. And she turned over lots of stuff she didn't have to, as anyone who read the emails knows, hence why there are emails asking about the times of TV shows or sending birthday greetings. And, additionally, her emails would be archived by the people she sent them to.

Again, none of this is a crime, and no one before Comey made his announcement (except far right-wing conspiracy sites) thought she was going to be indicted, let alone tried and found guilt.

@Frederick:

Trump wanted those e-mails recovered, to show that Hillary is a crook.

A crook who has managed to keep all evidence of her crookedness hidden for decades now. I would like to ask how many investigations into Hillary Clinton that turn up nothing will have to take place before you admit there was nothing there in the first place?

@Frederick:

Hillary then took the extra step of not only deleting those e-mails but made sure they could not be recovered by using "bleach bit" software.

Who had the "Bleach bit!" square on the Bingo board?

@Frederick:

Eventually, the dozen or more agencies investigating the e-mails determined that Hillary's rogue server in her house had been hacked by at LEAST 5 different countries and other parties not tied to a government.

Nope. Actually the State department's servers got hacked. There was zero evidence that any of Clinton's private equipment got hacked (hence why Russia didn't release the emails Trump asked for). If anything her equipment was more secure than the government's.

@Frederick:

Duplicates of many of those e-mails were found on the computer of pedophile Anthony Weiner who is the husband of Huma Abedin (who is Hillary's top aide and rumored lesbian lover).

They were client side copies.

@Frederick:

WikiLeaks began publishing batches of these e-mails which were extremely damaging to Hillary.

They weren't in and of themselves. There was nothing remotely damaging in them. All the damage was done because the media kept reporting on emails even though there wasn't a story there. The Hillary Clinton email saga was actually three different things, none of which actually amounted to a real scandal. So for a year and a half all the public heard was "Hillary Clinton something something something emails." And that was the damage.

@Frederick:

She wisely didn't even attempt to refute these e-mails, but started waving the "Red Flag" and claiming that Russia was trying to destroy her. 
Several times, the head of WikiLeaks stated that the source of the e-mails was NOT a state run agency, NOT Russia.. and Assange has a reputation for never lying.

Of course he does. He has a reputation for being a pathological liar. He will say or do anything for attention. Anywho, the hacking has been confirmed by anyone who looked at the evidence to be obviously Russia's handiwork.

I was going to take the time to reply to Loki100, but he is so full of shit that he doesn't deserve a response.

Bro, this is part and parcel with debate and politics. If you don't want to do it, consider not posting to begin with.

Personally, I think that the Russia witch hunt is red baiting 2.0, and it's both unsurprising and annoying that the Democrats are doing it. That said, and I don't know why I have to say this, but it's possible that both Hillary and Trump are doing dumb fucking shit that deserves investigation.

I don't think Trump is covering up anything more than using the presidency as a glorified platform for his business interests, because at the end of the day he's surprised he even won and he was kinda banking more on losing the presidency so he could do work as a private citizen and spread the Trump brand.

Hillary, my god, she's incredibly corrupt and of course she used a private server to run her own money laundering tit for tat through the Clinton Foundation, and if we had access to those deleted emails we'd see how she ran the State Department as a piggy bank.

Fuck 'em both.

@raphjd:

I got down voted for it by liberals.    So clearly SJWs don't like me being a genital'ist.

Or they are just being their usual political hack self, by down voting everything their "enemies" say without reading it.

Anyway, be definition, you are not gay if you want a woman or vag.

You got downvoted because of how you said it. No one cares if you want to fuck a guy or not if he has a vagina. But you just say without any justification that someone isn't gay if they have sex with a vagina.

What if you fuck a dude who has a uterus but a dick? It happens!

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/news/a36344/man-discovers-he-has-a-working-womb-and-uterus/

Do you know if you have a uterus or not? Been to the doctor lately?

I'm new to posting but I've found it a bit difficult to navigate. I'm not big on tone policing but it's so hard to read through the dense thicket of people using terms like SHILLARY and LIBTARD and it honestly does make it difficult to take the argument being made seriously. I like to discuss politics but I'm thus far finding it a bit too ad hominem to be enjoyable. That said, we can make the change we want to see. We can keep posting and model our behavior so others take a cue from how we post.

@raphjd:

@Loki100:

@raphjd:

NOPE.

Feminists say we shouldn't have trials or investigations.

[CITATION NEEDED]

(I'm guessing this is going to go to an anonymous tumblr post)

Actually, it goes much further than that.   It's pretty much the same situation we are seeing on college campuses, thanks to the Obama administration sending the "Dear Colleges" letter.

Rebecca Watson says that false rape claims are 8% (compared to most feminists who say 2%), but she goes on to justify sending these innocent men to prison without a trial so real rape victims don't have to go through a trial.

Still gonna need a citation on this. Links.

@raphjd:

Ok, I'm latino today.   I haven't decided what my gender for the day, or minute for that matter, is yet.     My current age is 25 and I'm a stop sign.   I'm also demisexual, at least while I write this post.

I don't even know the point you're trying to make. Do you?

@Dene:

@Frederick:

@aadam101:

You are so sadly mistaken.  Most unwanted children end up in between A and B.  They up in and out of foster care their entire lives.  They get abused, the state takes them away, the parents (usually just the mother) cleans herself up, they get sent back, they get abused again and the process repeats itself over and over.  In the meantime she is still having more children and they are all going through this (and sometimes not at the same time).  Foster care has an extremely low adoption rate.  Most kids never end up on an adoption track.  It costs states $40k per year per child.  An abortion costs $600.

I could get behind the anti abortion folks if they were willing to pony up the cash and fund that $40k per year.  They only care about fetuses.  They don't give a damn about actual children.

Genuine question.. when did she say this ?
Anybody who would even consider allowing a full term baby to have it's spinal cord severed hours before birth is beyond contempt.  Hillary Clinton is such a person.   I dare anybody to say that they defend the right to have such an abortion.

Clinton never did. In fact, she's been open to partial-birth abortion bans before. Which is dumb as hell because they're extremely rare and always because the mother's life is at extreme risk.