(12-23-2015 05:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:25 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:19 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Well I have actually seen somebody at a bar dressed like that, but still no cartoon about them.

And I've seen people in bars wearing suits....so what the **** does that mean? Nothing!

They're teenagers...they don't go to bars. And you don't see cartoons because they're not appropriate. What part of that don't you understand?

But I find this whole exercise funny as hell. The cons are now being all righteous, politically correct advocates for censorship.

You gotta love it!

We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep defending the cartoonist and trying to deflect

Nobody is defending the cartoonist, other than on first amendment grounds. The cartoon is wrong.

Now, will you correct the record and stop being purposely wrong?

We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep trying to deflect

my main point still stands...

Sadly, I don't think you're even capable of delineating what you believe the double-standard here actually is.

Maybe you can prove me wrong?

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:25 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I've seen people in bars wearing suits....so what the **** does that mean? Nothing!

They're teenagers...they don't go to bars. And you don't see cartoons because they're not appropriate. What part of that don't you understand?

But I find this whole exercise funny as hell. The cons are now being all righteous, politically correct advocates for censorship.

You gotta love it!

We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep defending the cartoonist and trying to deflect

Nobody is defending the cartoonist, other than on first amendment grounds. The cartoon is wrong.

Now, will you correct the record and stop being purposely wrong?

We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep trying to deflect

my main point still stands...

Sadly, I don't think you're even capable of delineating what you believe the double-standard here actually is.

Maybe you can prove me wrong?

Naw, I'll pass and deflect since you like to deflect too, but hey, keep carrying

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 03:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 01:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Is there really a debate over whether the children of the sitting President of the United States of America should have federally provided protection?

Or am I missing something here?

It would appear to be so.

Are a president's children more important than a citizen's children - no.

Are a president's children subject to being targeted by a lunatic more so than a regular Joe - without doubt. Hence the extra protections.

This one is actually easy.

Nope. This is classic DEM BS. Respond to something no one actually said. 200yrs said CLEARLY "I understand the need for them to be guarded, but that doesn't make them any more important than any other parent's children."

Where did all of this other nonsense about whether they should be guarded come from? Another strawman.

Oops!

(12-23-2015 12:28 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I don't think you should use people's family in any type of crap like that unless the family is strictly the subject of policy. For example, saying Obama is okay with his daughters being able to attend school with armed guards, but your child cannot is fair game...BUT, talking about their appearance is just off limits. You cannot just use children to use them.

Seriously...

The subject matter of the discussion is
WHETHER CHILDREN OF POLITICIANS ARE FAIR GAME
NOT
SHOULD OBAMA'S KIDS BE GUARDED

An EXAMPLE, which was not being argued, was used to show an acceptable example of how children of politicians can be fair game. Moreover, no where in that EXAMPLE does it say that Obama's kids should not have armed guards.

I thought people here were a bit more EDUCATED and could understand the difference between an argument and an example.

Yes, but don't use a debunked load of crap as your example then. All I did was point that out. But of course...everyone had to jump on that instead of realizing what it was. I thought people here were a bit more...oh, screw it...

The idea of giving additional proof to someone who can't understand the proof that has already been given is just classic spin room.

(12-23-2015 05:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:25 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep defending the cartoonist and trying to deflect

Nobody is defending the cartoonist, other than on first amendment grounds. The cartoon is wrong.

Now, will you correct the record and stop being purposely wrong?

We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep trying to deflect

my main point still stands...

Sadly, I don't think you're even capable of delineating what you believe the double-standard here actually is.

Maybe you can prove me wrong?

Naw, I'll pass and deflect since you like to deflect too, but hey, keep carrying

Knew you couldn't.

(12-23-2015 05:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is defending the cartoonist, other than on first amendment grounds. The cartoon is wrong.

Now, will you correct the record and stop being purposely wrong?

We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep trying to deflect

my main point still stands...

Sadly, I don't think you're even capable of delineating what you believe the double-standard here actually is.

Maybe you can prove me wrong?

Naw, I'll pass and deflect since you like to deflect too, but hey, keep carrying

Knew you couldn't.

Thank you for being the perfect example of double standards

(12-23-2015 05:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 03:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  It would appear to be so.

Are a president's children more important than a citizen's children - no.

Are a president's children subject to being targeted by a lunatic more so than a regular Joe - without doubt. Hence the extra protections.

This one is actually easy.

Nope. This is classic DEM BS. Respond to something no one actually said. 200yrs said CLEARLY "I understand the need for them to be guarded, but that doesn't make them any more important than any other parent's children."

Where did all of this other nonsense about whether they should be guarded come from? Another strawman.

Oops!

(12-23-2015 12:28 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I don't think you should use people's family in any type of crap like that unless the family is strictly the subject of policy. For example, saying Obama is okay with his daughters being able to attend school with armed guards, but your child cannot is fair game...BUT, talking about their appearance is just off limits. You cannot just use children to use them.

Seriously...

The subject matter of the discussion is
WHETHER CHILDREN OF POLITICIANS ARE FAIR GAME
NOT
SHOULD OBAMA'S KIDS BE GUARDED

An EXAMPLE, which was not being argued, was used to show an acceptable example of how children of politicians can be fair game. Moreover, no where in that EXAMPLE does it say that Obama's kids should not have armed guards.

I thought people here were a bit more EDUCATED and could understand the difference between an argument and an example.

Yes, but don't use a debunked load of crap as your example then. All I did was point that out. But of course...everyone had to jump on that instead of realizing what it was. I thought people here were a bit more...oh, screw it...

Exactly what was "debunked". All you did was show your inability to understand the difference between an argument and an example. You make a lot of silly arguments and carry more water than Adam Sandler. I would say stay dry...but, nevermind, too late.

(12-23-2015 05:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is defending the cartoonist, other than on first amendment grounds. The cartoon is wrong.

Now, will you correct the record and stop being purposely wrong?

We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep trying to deflect

my main point still stands...

Sadly, I don't think you're even capable of delineating what you believe the double-standard here actually is.

Maybe you can prove me wrong?

Naw, I'll pass and deflect since you like to deflect too, but hey, keep carrying

Knew you couldn't.

Can this stop? UTSA, all you do is argue and start drama with the libs. RWT, you're better than this, you're not Max power or fitbud, stop letting them control the situation. Some of the newer cons make me think Okla wasn't that bad.

-Your friendly neighborhood Neutral

(12-23-2015 05:49 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:44 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Nope. This is classic DEM BS. Respond to something no one actually said. 200yrs said CLEARLY "I understand the need for them to be guarded, but that doesn't make them any more important than any other parent's children."

Where did all of this other nonsense about whether they should be guarded come from? Another strawman.

Oops!

(12-23-2015 12:28 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I don't think you should use people's family in any type of crap like that unless the family is strictly the subject of policy. For example, saying Obama is okay with his daughters being able to attend school with armed guards, but your child cannot is fair game...BUT, talking about their appearance is just off limits. You cannot just use children to use them.

Seriously...

The subject matter of the discussion is
WHETHER CHILDREN OF POLITICIANS ARE FAIR GAME
NOT
SHOULD OBAMA'S KIDS BE GUARDED

An EXAMPLE, which was not being argued, was used to show an acceptable example of how children of politicians can be fair game. Moreover, no where in that EXAMPLE does it say that Obama's kids should not have armed guards.

I thought people here were a bit more EDUCATED and could understand the difference between an argument and an example.

Yes, but don't use a debunked load of crap as your example then. All I did was point that out. But of course...everyone had to jump on that instead of realizing what it was. I thought people here were a bit more...oh, screw it...

Exactly what was "debunked". All you did was show your inability to understand the difference between an argument and an example. You make a lot of silly arguments and carry more water than Adam Sandler. I would say stay dry...but, nevermind, too late.

That Obama's daughters were protected in school by armed guards. That was an NRA lie. I only pointed out that your example was poor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac..._blog.html

I guess you didn't realize this was already proven to be a debunked example when you used it, so for that, I apologize.

(12-23-2015 06:02 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:27 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  We are actually calling out the liberal double standards, but hey, keep trying to deflect

my main point still stands...

Sadly, I don't think you're even capable of delineating what you believe the double-standard here actually is.

Maybe you can prove me wrong?

Naw, I'll pass and deflect since you like to deflect too, but hey, keep carrying

Knew you couldn't.

Can this stop? UTSA, all you do is argue and start drama with the libs. RWT, you're better than this, you're not Max power or fitbud, stop letting them control the situation. Some of the newer cons make me think Okla wasn't that bad.

-Your friendly neighborhood Neutral

Thanks...I do have him on ignore already as he rarely contributes anything useful. I'll try to keep from opening up his posts in the future.

(12-23-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:02 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sadly, I don't think you're even capable of delineating what you believe the double-standard here actually is.

Maybe you can prove me wrong?

Naw, I'll pass and deflect since you like to deflect too, but hey, keep carrying

Knew you couldn't.

Can this stop? UTSA, all you do is argue and start drama with the libs. RWT, you're better than this, you're not Max power or fitbud, stop letting them control the situation. Some of the newer cons make me think Okla wasn't that bad.

-Your friendly neighborhood Neutral

Thanks...I do have him on ignore already as he rarely contributes anything useful. I'll try to keep from opening up his posts in the future.

Looks like he went into his safe space lmao


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(12-23-2015 06:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:49 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:30 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Oops!

Seriously...

The subject matter of the discussion is
WHETHER CHILDREN OF POLITICIANS ARE FAIR GAME
NOT
SHOULD OBAMA'S KIDS BE GUARDED

An EXAMPLE, which was not being argued, was used to show an acceptable example of how children of politicians can be fair game. Moreover, no where in that EXAMPLE does it say that Obama's kids should not have armed guards.

I thought people here were a bit more EDUCATED and could understand the difference between an argument and an example.

Yes, but don't use a debunked load of crap as your example then. All I did was point that out. But of course...everyone had to jump on that instead of realizing what it was. I thought people here were a bit more...oh, screw it...

Exactly what was "debunked". All you did was show your inability to understand the difference between an argument and an example. You make a lot of silly arguments and carry more water than Adam Sandler. I would say stay dry...but, nevermind, too late.

That Obama's daughters were protected in school by armed guards. That was an NRA lie. I only pointed out that your example was poor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac..._blog.html

I guess you didn't realize this was already proven to be a debunked example when you used it, so for that, I apologize.

You really like to deflect and reach with that water,huh? I've got some time, so I'll play...

First, it is TRUE that Obama's daughters were protected in school by armed guards. While they were in school, they had Secret Service protection guarding them and they were armed. Duh!!!

Second, again that statement was not the argument I was making (as this thread is about involving politicians' kids and family in media critiques)...but, maybe I should write that in crayon and you'll get it. But regardless, if you want to be dense and silly...I said, "saying Obama is okay with his daughters being able to attend school with armed guards, but your child cannot is fair game". The article you posted has nothing to do with my statement. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. As stated above, they are able to attend with armed guards...that is ACCURATE. I never said who provided them and I never said anything about other students at the school. I know you wanted that to be the case, but, I guess plain English is difficult for you to understand.

You really should stop embarrassing yourself trying to carry all of that water.

(12-23-2015 05:13 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In my memory Chelsea Clinton got it the worst. Poor girl.

IIRC, Billary told the media in the beginning that Chelsea was off limits...way off limits, and they (the media) kept away.

I was in my early teens when he took office but I remember there being talk about her being ugly. It seems you're right though that by and large the media left her alone and as I said mostly the media left Bush's and Obamas kids out of it.

Rush did call her a dog, maybe what I remember stems mainly from that. And you really can't expect better from Rush.

(12-23-2015 06:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:13 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In my memory Chelsea Clinton got it the worst. Poor girl.

IIRC, Billary told the media in the beginning that Chelsea was off limits...way off limits, and they (the media) kept away.

I was in my early teens when he took office but I remember there being talk about her being ugly. It seems you're right though that by and large the media left her alone and as I said mostly the media left Bush's and Obamas kids out of it.

Rush did call her a dog, maybe what I remember stems mainly from that. And you really can't expect better from Rush.

She was ugly then and she still is.

(12-23-2015 07:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:13 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In my memory Chelsea Clinton got it the worst. Poor girl.

IIRC, Billary told the media in the beginning that Chelsea was off limits...way off limits, and they (the media) kept away.

I was in my early teens when he took office but I remember there being talk about her being ugly. It seems you're right though that by and large the media left her alone and as I said mostly the media left Bush's and Obamas kids out of it.

Rush did call her a dog, maybe what I remember stems mainly from that. And you really can't expect better from Rush.

She was ugly then and she still is.

Pretty much. Media didn't make an issue of it though.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

To think the lady that did all of this won a Pulitzer prize...

Then again, Obama won a Nobel prize. I guess it is more about what you are than what you do to win these sorts of things.

(12-23-2015 05:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:22 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 08:18 AM)I45owl Wrote:  It's hard to understand what the hell either were thinking in the process of this making it to print...

Yeah if that were Obama's daughters as monkey's there would have been folks closing down the Post. Again what is it with Liberal media thinking its ok to make Republicans or their families look like monkeys. They did it with Bush too. Sick Fvcks ought to be fired.

Do we really have to explain to you in 2015 that monkeys are used as derogatory caricatures for black people?

Cruz's girls aren't black.

Geez.

And NO, I'M NOT DEFENDING THE CARTOON.

Really, Duh ! It still is derogatory to make anyone look like a monkey , especially a kid and no I didn't assume that you weren't offended by it either.
I'm pointing out that the Media needs to stop attacks on candidates Kids no matter the race. And which They are also of Hispanic decent and not just of the so called White race that the Left wing media has said is unprotected from ridicule. The PC stuff is one of the reasons there is such a backlash arising in this country and it will only grow stronger .

(12-23-2015 07:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:13 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In my memory Chelsea Clinton got it the worst. Poor girl.

IIRC, Billary told the media in the beginning that Chelsea was off limits...way off limits, and they (the media) kept away.

I was in my early teens when he took office but I remember there being talk about her being ugly. It seems you're right though that by and large the media left her alone and as I said mostly the media left Bush's and Obamas kids out of it.

Rush did call her a dog, maybe what I remember stems mainly from that. And you really can't expect better from Rush.

She was ugly then and she still is.

She resembles Webb Hubble............ He is an ugly man.

(12-23-2015 04:48 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In my memory Chelsea Clinton got it the worst. Poor girl.

Different political climate, and media, back then. Try again.

I don't recall newspaper cartoonists making fun of her?

Is having a cartoon the ultimate insult?

(12-24-2015 01:02 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:48 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 04:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In my memory Chelsea Clinton got it the worst. Poor girl.

Different political climate, and media, back then. Try again.

I don't recall newspaper cartoonists making fun of her?

Is having a cartoon the ultimate insult?

Making fun of a child publicly? Yes, it's pretty damn bad.