|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Chesterton is to the Catholics what Hayek is to the neoliberals.
|
On June 05 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 02:54 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 04 2016 16:07 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged. TIL marriage equality is stupid I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. It's not a liberal tactic to call out your inaccurate, sweeping language. The "I don't care" line also speaks volumes. So please, post more about how little you care and how unashamed you are of your homophobia 
I didn't know arguments became stronger by adding Smiley faces at the end. I should try it sometime
|
You would need an argument of substance first to try it on, and to my knowledge you've never had one.
|
My 1st grade catholic school teacher would read us a Chesterton quote at the start of every day of class. She was the only cool teacher there and I went on to be expelled after the 3rd grade, but yes, I agree
In other news, Trump continues to do what Trump does best.....
Donald Trump is intensifying his attacks on the federal judge presiding over fraud lawsuits against Trump University. On Friday the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, dismissing criticism from legal experts on the right and left, pressed his case against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, saying the Indiana-born judge is biased against him because "he's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."
Trump made the remarks, and others like it, repeatedly, in interviews with CNN and The Wall Street Journal, referring to Judge Curiel variously as "of Mexican heritage" or just "Mexican." But the message was always the same, that the judge had what Trump called "a conflict" because of his ethnicity.
At a rally in San Diego last week, Trump characterized the judge as "a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater." And "they ought to look into Judge Curiel."
In public, Trump has called repeatedly for the judge to recuse himself, but his lawyers in fact have not made any such request.
That is undoubtedly because court precedents are unanimous in holding that race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation are not themselves grounds for disqualifying a judge. If they were, legal ethicists observe, the legal system would fall into chaos because no judge would be free from taint. The five Supreme Court justices who are Catholic could not rule on a case in which the Catholic church participated, but neither could the other justices who are not Catholic.
Moreover, while Trump is free to say anything he wants about the judge, the lawyers in the case are bound by the professional rules of conduct and could be sanctioned for making such charges about Curiel without actual evidence of bias.
Legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers notes in addition that litigants may not wait to seek a judge's disqualification; they must move to recuse the judge as soon as they know there is a conflict.
Trump's lawyers, from the prestigious O'Melveny & Myers firm, however, have not done that. Indeed, some observers argue that the judge did the candidate a big favor by postponing the trial in the case until after the election. And Trump did not become bellicose about Curiel until the judge, at the request of news organizations, ordered the unsealing of documents in the case— documents that have proved embarrassing for the GOP presumptive nominee.
"This is not really about rebutting accusations that Trump University defrauded its students," said NYU's Gillers. Rather, it is a kind of dog whistle to supporters, "a way to keep the subject of illegal Mexican immigration on the front page."
Judge Curiel, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama, was born in Indiana, the son of Mexican-American immigrants. He served for 17 years as a federal prosecutor in California, rising to chief of narcotics enforcement in the southern district. In 1997 he was believed to be the target of an assassination attempt from a Mexican drug cartel, was put under 24-hour watch by the U.S. Marshall Service for a year, was moved to a military base and eventually to Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The judge's friend, former U.S. Attorney Gregory Vega, scoffs at the notion that Curiel will be in any way influenced by Trump's remarks. "What's so ironic is that Gonzalo gave so many years of his life to protecting America from drug traffickers," Vega told Yahoo News. "He had a credible threat on his life. Do you really think being called [names] by Mr. Trump is going to frighten him? How silly."
Trump Presses Case That 'Mexican' Judge Curiel Is Biased Against Him
|
On June 05 2016 03:47 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:On June 05 2016 02:54 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 04 2016 16:07 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged. TIL marriage equality is stupid I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. It's not a liberal tactic to call out your inaccurate, sweeping language. The "I don't care" line also speaks volumes. So please, post more about how little you care and how unashamed you are of your homophobia I didn't know arguments became stronger by adding Smiley faces at the end. I should try it sometime
That's, like, Internet 101 
|
On June 05 2016 03:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 03:39 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2016 23:57 farvacola wrote:Fine because you insist on being served up disapproval like a 10 year old in line at the cafeteria, start with this (though you needn't stick with the Dominican translation). + Show Spoiler + Oh no, not the Aquinas. Anything but the Aquinas. Might as well recommend Chesterton if you want that kind of hyperrational theology, because at least he's got some insight into faith steeped in capitalist modernity. I actually had something of a crisis as I chose which work to recommend, though I ended up eventually giving in in to my soft spot for Catholics. The point, that a proper and meaningful critique of religion ought be very familiar with foundational works of religious thinking (and, ideally, couched in their jargon), still stands
Pascal, obviously Pascal
|
I got a warning that said i was making "low effort" posts for posting RIPLEY 2016 in this thread, now all of you are just writing about smileys. This is the kind of systemic violence I want to fight! #allpostsmatter
|
On June 05 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 02:54 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 04 2016 16:07 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged. TIL marriage equality is stupid I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. It's not a liberal tactic to call out your inaccurate, sweeping language. The "I don't care" line also speaks volumes. So please, post more about how little you care and how unashamed you are of your homophobia
Inaccurate and sweeping? I said that trump calls out a large portion of THE PART that's idiotic. How did you get from this that I think equal marriage is idiotic?
See that's where you are mistaken. I'm not homophobic I'm just not ashamed to be called a homophobe by cucks.
|
On June 05 2016 03:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 02:42 Introvert wrote:On June 05 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Hilary Clinton: California's governor. Los Angeles' mayor. The LA Times
Bernie Sanders: Danny DeVito. Calm down with the Hillary coolaid. There was a zero percent chance any of those people/entities would endorse Sanders. Brown is an old and frial long time democrat. Garcetti is so squishy and image obsessed he wouldn't dare go against Hillary, never mind all the Hispanics in LA he'd be potentially alienating. The La times is a combo of all of the above reasons. Democrat loyalty, squishes, image obsessed, and concerned with the locals (even if none of them read it). I would be scared. The fact that Sanders has closed the gap honestly surprises me. There are a crap ton of college students here, but still... It's not like all of them can vote here. I do find it remarkable that Bernie is still winning states despite the fact that he is mathematically unfeasible at this point. When it was clear that Trump won he started to win bigger because the presumptive winner gets that boost. It is a testament to Hillary's weakness as a candidate that her victory margin is so small despite the fact that she basically has every conventional advantage one would want, and that Bernie isn't even a strong candidate (I can see a lot of people saying, "he has good ideas but he's not the right person to implement them" and they wouldn't be wrong).
She isn't spending any money or campaign time in the primaries anymore, whilst Bernie is spending every last dime he can, while furiously campaigning across each state. It has a fairly large impact on undecideds and turnout, but not effect the race. I believe it's fairly incorrect to extrapolate candidate strength and viability from this.
Also, I didn't want to believe there were people who seriously use the word cuck, and that they were all /pol/ trolls. But apparently not.
It would be nice if you could not be incredibly vague about what you consider "large portion of THE PART that's idiotic". There's been a whole host of topics fought over since the 1990s in the current culture war. I'm going to assume you're looking to attack "PC" and "feminist" culture, but, well, I don't want to mis-attribute opinions here.
|
The man was called a homophobe without even specifying remotely an ounce of anti-gay sentiment. The use of cuck was justified because he posted like a cuck.
Bernies crowd being Bernies crowd
http://archive.is/wSLLJ
"Down with capitalism!" - Tweeted from their iphone & the system of abundance
Idiots.
|
On June 05 2016 04:15 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:On June 05 2016 02:54 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 04 2016 16:07 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged. TIL marriage equality is stupid I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. It's not a liberal tactic to call out your inaccurate, sweeping language. The "I don't care" line also speaks volumes. So please, post more about how little you care and how unashamed you are of your homophobia Inaccurate and sweeping? I said that trump calls out a large portion of THE PART that's idiotic. How did you get from this that I think equal marriage is idiotic? See that's where you are mistaken. I'm not homophobic I'm just not ashamed to be called a homophobe by cucks.
It is precisely this exchange, precisely this gross, conceivably deliberate, misunderstanding and hateful rhetoric on the part of Farvacola (with a happy face added on top) that people are growing tired of and characterize almost entirely as a problem on the extreme left. This is almost a textbook example on how to unashamedly smear someone's position.
|
On June 05 2016 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 04:15 Kiarip wrote:On June 05 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:On June 05 2016 02:54 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 04 2016 16:07 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged. TIL marriage equality is stupid I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. It's not a liberal tactic to call out your inaccurate, sweeping language. The "I don't care" line also speaks volumes. So please, post more about how little you care and how unashamed you are of your homophobia Inaccurate and sweeping? I said that trump calls out a large portion of THE PART that's idiotic. How did you get from this that I think equal marriage is idiotic? See that's where you are mistaken. I'm not homophobic I'm just not ashamed to be called a homophobe by cucks. It is precisely this exchange, precisely this gross, conceivably deliberate, misunderstanding and hateful rhetoric on the part of Farvacola (with a happy face added on top) that people are growing tired of and characterize almost entirely as a problem on the extreme left. This is almost a textbook example on how to unashamedly smear someone's position.
I am growing tired of it too. How on earth did he felt threatened by that post?
|
On June 05 2016 04:39 SK.Testie wrote:
The man was called a homophobe without even specifying remotely an ounce of anti-gay sentiment.
So I am not the only one who found so ething amiss with this.
|
On June 05 2016 04:39 SK.Testie wrote:The man was called a homophobe without even specifying remotely an ounce of anti-gay sentiment. The use of cuck was justified because he posted like a cuck. Bernies crowd being Bernies crowd http://archive.is/wSLLJ"Down with capitalism!" - Tweeted from their iphone & the system of abundance Idiots.
lol yes, glad to see that you've finally donned the fedora openly. Lemme guess, you just can't wait to let us all know how Trump and his followers like Kiarip are the only people telling the truth and that there are plenty of terrible youtube videos, breitbart articles, and shitty reddit threads to prove it.
The nice thing is that y'all are giving the thread an excellent case study on what Trump represents relative to a dialoging population. When prompted to clarify purposefully vague, clumsy, and stupid sounding language like "a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved," y'all just throw up your arms like everyone doesn't tacitly understand the ugly bullshit your words stand for. Look, we get it, gay people, black people, mexican people, they can be scary because they don't look like you and there are more and more of them as time goes on, and yes, their increasing social capital has given them an increasing influence over how public conversations are accepted in common parlance. It's gonna be ok, no matter how many times you use the word cuck or decide to say something vague and inflammatory.
On June 05 2016 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2016 04:15 Kiarip wrote:On June 05 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote:On June 05 2016 02:54 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 04 2016 16:07 Kiarip wrote:On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged. TIL marriage equality is stupid I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. It's not a liberal tactic to call out your inaccurate, sweeping language. The "I don't care" line also speaks volumes. So please, post more about how little you care and how unashamed you are of your homophobia Inaccurate and sweeping? I said that trump calls out a large portion of THE PART that's idiotic. How did you get from this that I think equal marriage is idiotic? See that's where you are mistaken. I'm not homophobic I'm just not ashamed to be called a homophobe by cucks. It is precisely this exchange, precisely this gross, conceivably deliberate, misunderstanding and hateful rhetoric on the part of Farvacola (with a happy face added on top) that people are growing tired of and characterize almost entirely as a problem on the extreme left. This is almost a textbook example on how to unashamedly smear someone's position.
Spoken like someone who has never had a prolonged, in-person conversation with a true blood Trump supporter. You missed a few adjectives though, you should probably edit a bit more. I do enjoy the sentiments of our wounded Canadian brothers though, so thanks for letting me know
|
His post could easily be read as being that he doesn't give a shit what people think about what he says, even if they are homophobic in nature. Nothing really amiss with the flippant response. How quickly you guys look to lock shields around someone like that though is quite telling.
Edit: I had to look up what "cuck" meant. Lol you guys...
|
Idiot Americans have always needed to only be on one extreme - Bernie supporters suddenly think capitalism is bad, even though 99% of all MEDC's that are socialist are capitalists as well. They still haven't figured out what fascism really means and the disgusting PC dipshits still didn't figure out the real problems yet. The Trump supporters seem to get better as smarter and more quiet people join the "movement" as well, whereas Hilary is still being voted only to prevent one of the two great catastrophes. What a fucking mess, media focuses on the minor issues that change weekly (if not even daily) and nobody really cares about the upcoming financial crash it seems. They will after it happened, and if that is before the election, Trump has got it and things get more... interesting I guess. GLHF World
|
I prefer to just let reports and mods deal with that than to discuss over it; though I guess there is a fair bit of overlap and complication in political discourse over such things.
|
On June 05 2016 05:00 Slaughter wrote:
His post could easily be read as being that he doesn't give a shit what people think about what he says, even if they are homophobic in nature. Nothing really amiss with the flippant response. How quickly you guys look to lock shields around someone like that though is quite telling.
Edit: I had to look up what "cuck" meant. Lol you guys...
Well aren't you a nimble navigator, you.
|
Here's a fun example of something that just happened regarding a Trump supporter I know: a dude I go to law school with, we'll call him John, is a big black gay guy from Chicago who's had some really bad dealings with the police and he knows a lot of people like him with similar stories. Accordingly, John posts a lot about how police reform in Chicago is very important. The only Trump supporter at our school decided to bombard John's Facebook with posts about how John's concern for police brutality in Chicago amounted to black supremacy, that all of "his people's problems" (his words) were the fault of black people and black people alone, and that the rest of society was tired of supporting poor urban people.
Now yes, this might be a remote event in a number of ways, but given the type of conversations being had in the corners of the internet that support Trump, it isn't exactly a logical leap to associate tacitly racist, homophobic ideas with Trump supporters generally, particularly when people like Testie decide to remind everyone what pro-gamers can get away with on a pro-gaming website.
Go to a Trump rally and talk to the people there Radscorpion. I dare you.
|
Calm down, the dude seriously didn't say anything anti-gay but you made a huge leap on calling him a homophobe and then having the audacity of being smug about it.
Edit: I don't think I've gotten away with anything on this site.
1. Banned 2 days for calling Bernie supporters animals when they were clearly rioting. 2 days
2. Banned for posting anti-Islamic news stories, comments, polls etc. 1 week
3. Banned for advocating undignified violent measures towards convicted violent criminals. 30 days
All of these bans came as a surprise to me and is a testament to how much the site has changed in the last 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Summa_Theologica_(2nd_rev._ed.)_-_Volume_3.djvu/page7-220px-Summa_Theologica_(2nd_rev._ed.)_-_Volume_3.djvu.jpg)
