(07-17-2019 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes 93, I would have found what you posted that Trump said objectionable.

But you really didnt give us what he posted, did you?

And yes, if the 4 know how to fix their shithole places of origin, in my mind they should definitely fix those in their view of how the world should be, come back, and tell us how to get to the promised land.

I told a person on the other side of another corporate restructure to do that today. Heavy stuff. Edgy, even. Lucky if she doesnt get her mob to go make fun of my followers in a condescending, smug as **** manner like you seem so much of a man on mission to do so.

OK. With that last story I think you have put a bow on your argument and I declare you a winner. By the power vested in me by the Rice Parliament Society of SJW Snowflakes I hearby grant you the ability to use the terms "retard" and "short bus" freely. Use them in good health, Tanq.

(07-17-2019 05:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Perhaps... can we agree that you guys are really living up to the stereotypes of right-wingers today?

Funny you dont bother to defend you inclusion of kids in your barb. Kneejerk reaction to bring kids into the mix?

When I think of the "short bus" that you referenced, I general think of children with special needs. You're right, sometimes there are special needs adults now that you bring it up. Guess what? Still not any better, Tanq!

Quote:Nor do you bother to explain why you added the comment about Trumps base lapping it up after your first sentence of Trump is flinging poo.


Why did you 93? Not a rhetorical question here 93, a straight dead serious one. What do you feel that add-on brought forth? What did it add in your mind?

I'm not understanding the "add-on"? Why did I make the comment in the first place? Because I thought that maybe his base wouldn't have a problem with his tweets. I'm pretty sure that I'm right. It looks like even most Republican congressmen and women don't have a problem with those tweets. I believe that Trump's base is OK with a lot of Trump behavior that I personally find very questionable. Is this belief the same as you calling somebody a "retard"? I don't think the two ideas are especially related.

So you dont think that "Trump flings poo. Trump supporters dont care" isnt talking badly about Trump supporters. Interesting point of view.

I mean you (and the lad) go absolutely ape **** if any reference is made in any tangential way about one of about a thousand classifications (or sub-classifications to about the 10th degree), and you dont understand that your 'add on' comment doesnt come across as smug and condescending.

That is a very interesting type of myopy there, my friend.

I mean, the topic was *solely* Trump's comments to that point. You were the one that tacked on that comment about his followers. Why feel the absolute urge to include his followers (supporters, base, whatever the fk you want to call the group on this bounce house jump) in your comment? Not that you *did* include them, but why the need to include that obvious non-sequitor of a sentence? Just because?

Obviously not your deep and unbridled respect for them, but why include them in the conversation *at all*? That is if not to go off on a self preening moral judgement of them, I mean. I am sure that was never the case, but there is a reason that you feel the overriding urge to 'drop them into the action'. What is it?

OMG are you even reading my posts, Tanq? I wondered out loud about the political blowback for Trump in reference to those tweets!

No, you made a comment not about general political blowback, you made a direct comment directly to and at Trumps (followers, voters, base). And tied them to the poo-flinging remark in that same act.

I will take it you have no idea why you included that comment about Trumps (followers, voters, base), actually particularly at them in all honesty. Let's just write it off as a 'knee jerk' reaction then, shall we? With no ascertainable reason that could ever be fathomed.

Must be your deep undying and unimaginable respect for that group that made you single them out and directly tie them to Trump's statement. Got it. Color me impressed.

(07-17-2019 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes 93, I would have found what you posted that Trump said objectionable.

But you really didnt give us what he posted, did you?

And yes, if the 4 know how to fix their shithole places of origin, in my mind they should definitely fix those in their view of how the world should be, come back, and tell us how to get to the promised land.

I told a person on the other side of another corporate restructure to do that today. Heavy stuff. Edgy, even. Lucky if she doesnt get her mob to go make fun of my followers in a condescending, smug as **** manner like you seem so much of a man on mission to do so.

OK. With that last story I think you have put a bow on your argument and I declare you a winner. By the power vested in me by the Rice Parliament Society of SJW Snowflakes I hearby grant you the ability to use the terms "retard" and "short bus" freely. Use them in good health, Tanq.

I've already stated my mea culpa on that 93. Why do you try and keep tossing that about?

Got to get your moral preening points for the day or somefink?

(07-17-2019 05:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes 93, I would have found what you posted that Trump said objectionable.

But you really didnt give us what he posted, did you?

And yes, if the 4 know how to fix their shithole places of origin, in my mind they should definitely fix those in their view of how the world should be, come back, and tell us how to get to the promised land.

I told a person on the other side of another corporate restructure to do that today. Heavy stuff. Edgy, even. Lucky if she doesnt get her mob to go make fun of my followers in a condescending, smug as **** manner like you seem so much of a man on mission to do so.

OK. With that last story I think you have put a bow on your argument and I declare you a winner. By the power vested in me by the Rice Parliament Society of SJW Snowflakes I hearby grant you the ability to use the terms "retard" and "short bus" freely. Use them in good health, Tanq.

I've already stated my mea culpa on that 93. Why do you try and keep tossing that about?

Because in an epic case of Whattaboutism (aren't you the one that rails against that?) you brought up my reaction to the Trump tweets as a response to the discussion of the use of the terms "retard" and "snow flake". YOU were the one trying to somehow relate the two things, not me.

(07-17-2019 05:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You are (as usual it seems lately) reaching REALLY hard here, Tanq.

A non-answer, good. Then *why* did you knee jerk include kids in that group 93? ***** and giggles? You either did that intentionally, or instinctively, care to answer which? Shouldnt be hard....

But let me also repeat the *real* question on the table that you avoided:

Care to explain why you added the comment about Trumps base lapping it up after your first sentence of 'Trump is flinging poo'?

Why did you 93? Not a rhetorical question here 93, a straight dead serious one. What do you feel that add-on brought forth? What did it add in your mind?

The post referenced Trump's recent tweets which I found objectionable. I guessed that many people would find them objectionable and I asked myself if there would be serious political blowback for Trump. I then surmised that his base would probably be OK with the tweets. To use your phrase, it seems that Trump's base is OK with him "flinging poo".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...fad9da0e10

Some snippets:


'Yet Trump appears committed to a base strategy for his reelection, and his provocations are widely viewed as efforts to fire up conservatives.'

'Jonathan M. Metzl, a Vanderbilt University sociology professor who has researched how conservative voters support policies that harm their interests, said Trump’s critics routinely underestimate the potency of his message — even one that is outright racist — to his core supporters.

It plays into an ‘us versus them’ formulation in which people are out to ‘take what’s ours’ — that’s the message, really,” said Metzl, author of “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland.”

“When Trump frames it that way, it reaffirms that formulation: We’re under attack and I’m defending you,” Metzl said. He added: “I hate to use the word savvy, but that’s probably what it is. The more we talk about his outrageous behavior, the more it evacuates the middle ground” as Democrats move further left to counter Trump.

During Trump’s South Lawn appearance, a reporter asked if he was concerned that “many people saw your tweet as racist” and that white-nationalist groups were finding common cause with him.

“It doesn’t concern me,” Trump replied, “because many people agree with me.”'

I get it, because they are obviously "conservative voters [who] support policies that harm their interests", according to your source above (direct quote there sparkles).

Kind of sounds like your reasoning to include that is that you want to preen about how ignorant they are, doesnt it? And you are opining because they are so ignorant they wont care. Yes, we are certainly making some progress here.

And the other catch here is that "Trump’s critics routinely underestimate the potency of his message — even one that is outright racist — to his core supporters."

Okey dokey, now you are using as your backing that well, his core supporters are so ignorant that they either agree with racist comments, or they dont care.

Do you agree with those findings there 93? Is that why you are so antsy to make a comment about Trump's base (followers, bounce, supporters, bounce, voters)?

SO you realize that your reasoning of wanting to include Trump supporters in the flinging of poo comment is now evidenced by your specific reference to those same people being so fing stupid that they 'vote against their interests' and 'dont seem to be smart enough to realize that they are racists.'

That doesnt seem to a really good point in your favor about why you want to tie Trump (supporters, followers, base) to that sentence.

All your evidence you bring up simply states abuot what utter ignorant people they are. Funny that, isnt it.

I am sure you have an endless depth of respect for Trump (supporters, followers, base). It is just that you have a hard time expressing it, right?

Man that rain feels awesome on the side of my leg there, 93.

This is your argument in defense of your right to use the term "retard" and "short bus"? I'm confused.

I guess you dont understand the term 'mea culpa'. It means 'I was wrong'. Please note where I indicated this has *anything* to with my comment. To paraphrase your colleague: 'reading comprehension'? Or just doing the desperate dodge at this point?

(07-17-2019 05:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes 93, I would have found what you posted that Trump said objectionable.

But you really didnt give us what he posted, did you?

And yes, if the 4 know how to fix their shithole places of origin, in my mind they should definitely fix those in their view of how the world should be, come back, and tell us how to get to the promised land.

I told a person on the other side of another corporate restructure to do that today. Heavy stuff. Edgy, even. Lucky if she doesnt get her mob to go make fun of my followers in a condescending, smug as **** manner like you seem so much of a man on mission to do so.

OK. With that last story I think you have put a bow on your argument and I declare you a winner. By the power vested in me by the Rice Parliament Society of SJW Snowflakes I hearby grant you the ability to use the terms "retard" and "short bus" freely. Use them in good health, Tanq.

I've already stated my mea culpa on that 93. Why do you try and keep tossing that about?

Because in an epic case of Whattaboutism (aren't you the one that rails against that?) you brought up my reaction to the Trump tweets as a response to the discussion of the use of the terms "retard" and "snow flake". YOU were the one trying to somehow relate the two things, not me.

Then I guess you *dont* understand what I have said on that. Mea culpa. Got it straight now? Or is that too much of a stretch for you?

And no, my apologies, not trying to relate the two. Perhaps you should tell me where and how I related the two? Being in the same post I'll spot you, but please tell me where I have related the two.

By the way sparkles, 'mea culpa' has a meaning. If you dont know it, look it up.

I did find it cute that you automatically invoked children in my list of supposed bad deeds. Glad to know that was just a stupid mistake instead of an intentional act or a knee jerk reaction.

(07-17-2019 05:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes 93, I would have found what you posted that Trump said objectionable.

But you really didnt give us what he posted, did you?

And yes, if the 4 know how to fix their shithole places of origin, in my mind they should definitely fix those in their view of how the world should be, come back, and tell us how to get to the promised land.

I told a person on the other side of another corporate restructure to do that today. Heavy stuff. Edgy, even. Lucky if she doesnt get her mob to go make fun of my followers in a condescending, smug as **** manner like you seem so much of a man on mission to do so.

OK. With that last story I think you have put a bow on your argument and I declare you a winner. By the power vested in me by the Rice Parliament Society of SJW Snowflakes I hearby grant you the ability to use the terms "retard" and "short bus" freely. Use them in good health, Tanq.

I've already stated my mea culpa on that 93. Why do you try and keep tossing that about?

Because in an epic case of Whattaboutism (aren't you the one that rails against that?) you brought up my reaction to the Trump tweets as a response to the discussion of the use of the terms "retard" and "snow flake". YOU were the one trying to somehow relate the two things, not me.

I did find it cute that you automatically invoked children in my list of supposed bad deeds. Glad to know that was just a stupid mistake instead of an intentional act or a knee jerk reaction.

Who said it was a mistake? Did you not read my explanation that Lad subsequently supported?

(07-17-2019 05:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes 93, I would have found what you posted that Trump said objectionable.

But you really didnt give us what he posted, did you?

And yes, if the 4 know how to fix their shithole places of origin, in my mind they should definitely fix those in their view of how the world should be, come back, and tell us how to get to the promised land.

I told a person on the other side of another corporate restructure to do that today. Heavy stuff. Edgy, even. Lucky if she doesnt get her mob to go make fun of my followers in a condescending, smug as **** manner like you seem so much of a man on mission to do so.

OK. With that last story I think you have put a bow on your argument and I declare you a winner. By the power vested in me by the Rice Parliament Society of SJW Snowflakes I hearby grant you the ability to use the terms "retard" and "short bus" freely. Use them in good health, Tanq.

I've already stated my mea culpa on that 93. Why do you try and keep tossing that about?

Because in an epic case of Whattaboutism (aren't you the one that rails against that?) you brought up my reaction to the Trump tweets as a response to the discussion of the use of the terms "retard" and "snow flake". YOU were the one trying to somehow relate the two things, not me.

Then I guess you *dont* understand what I have said on that. Mea culpa. Got it straight now? Or is that too much of a stretch for you?

And no, my apologies, not trying to relate the two. Perhaps you should tell me where and how I related the two? Being in the same post I'll spot you, but please tell me where I have related the two.

I responded to OO's acting befuddled over PC-language with this quote:

"I think you may be acting deliberately clueless here, OO.

It's frustrating to see smart people throw their hands up in the air and act like figuring out which words are OK and which are not is completely befuddling.

I will grant you that there are extremists when it comes to PC-policing that can create confusion (It's not OK to call a black person "black"?).

But come on. There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing. It isn't difficult to figure out that the use of the term "gay" in a pejorative sense is offensive. "Retard" and "short bus" as well."


YOU were the first to reply to my post and this was the first sentence of that reply:

"But when you bounce around the issue and say that Trumps followers will lap up the comments, you meant nothing perjorative. Or smug. Or condescending. Got it."


Now do you see how you were the one that tried to relate the two?

I was relating the concept of 'There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing' with your *cough* interesting *cough* need to relate your view of Trump voters.

I utterly fail where there is a defense of anything about the 'r-word'. Perhaps point out any spirited (hell, even listless for that matter) defense of that. My volitional removal of that pretty much voids that, doesnt it? But please do tell where there is a defense of it. 'Mea culpa' kind of says it, doesnt it? Have you looked that one up yet?

I found it cute (and a little knee-jerkish) for you to rail about the 'kids'. But the progressive mode of expanding the population of aggrieved people seems perfectly well suited for that, so I will spot you that one.

But now that you have explained that 'nuance' to this deplorable, I do find it horribly ironic that you automatically expand that population of the aggrieved to kids for me, and are utterly fing clueless about your own comments about Trump (supporters, followers, base, voters, sycophants). Very deft move; very progressive of you. <clap>

And to think, this all started over...

Wait, what in the heck did this get started over?

Lolz.

So 93 posted this link to the WashPo in defense of his 'gee I wonder that the hell these Trump supporters I have a huge, deep, and abiding respect for' think about poo flinging.

For those that dont have a subscription use this link for a reference

Some interesting points:

Quote:[Trump’s combustible formula of white identity politics] has pushed Democratic presidential candidates sharply to the left on issues such as immigration and civil rights, as they respond to the liberal backlash against him.

They are right ---- the Democratic party has veered sharply to the left. But its Trump's fault. Lolz.

The author here seemingly ignores that in 2016, Bernie Sanders ran basically even with Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Only by manipulation were the Democrats able to make sure that an actual socialist wouldn’t be its nominee. Oh, but lets go further into the absolute tome of speculation that has been proffered up by 93 as his 'reason' for 'just by happenstance' including Trump's (followers, base, supporters) in his musings about Trump's poo fling.

The article assiduously ignores the smart move of 'centering' in light of Trump, oh, but why let that get in the way of a good screed.

The article also breathlessly says this about Trump's 'racism':

Quote:To try to excite his core voters, [Trump] continues to describe Latino immigration as a threat to the nation by arguing that “we don’t have a country” if borders are not enforced.

Uhh....... no. The actual quote is this:
“If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.”

Funny, that seems to be a truism. Identity politics? Cmon.....

Oh my, we have a quote-centric issue here apparently as laxly enforced by our own illustrious 93 when he said "Trump said 4 congresswoman 'should go back to where they came from'" (the quote I am using is a paraphrase but am too lazy to hunt it down right now. I am sure according the lad's point of view there will something wrong, of course)

Also in this tome of the all-knowing one finds this:

Quote:More recently, [Trump] unsuccessfully championed an effort to add a citizenship question to the U.S. census that would have increased the political power of white voters by discouraging Latino participation in the count and allowed states to draw legislative districts to exclude undocumented immigrants.

It may very well be the question might have 'discouraged' Latinos who are in the country illegally to answer.

But riddle me this, why in the hell should illegal immigration cause the dilution of the political power of actual lawful residents?

This article doesn’t say. Nor does it explain *why* the U.S. shouldn’t try to get an accurate count of the number of people who are its lawful residents. Just some good ol rhetorical flourishes one imagines.

93, I love how you indulge us with a (non) explanation of your 'gee Trump supporters are too fing ignorant to care' comment with this trash. This article really seemingly is an invitation to indulge in self-directed projection when it claims that President Trump’s positions on issues like these constitute “white identity politics.”

Did you even read the article and ask yourself *any* discerning questions about it before you tossed it up like an afterthought to us?

Good for you. <clap --- again.>

(07-17-2019 05:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 05:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You are (as usual it seems lately) reaching REALLY hard here, Tanq.

A non-answer, good. Then *why* did you knee jerk include kids in that group 93? ***** and giggles? You either did that intentionally, or instinctively, care to answer which? Shouldnt be hard....

But let me also repeat the *real* question on the table that you avoided:

Care to explain why you added the comment about Trumps base lapping it up after your first sentence of 'Trump is flinging poo'?

Why did you 93? Not a rhetorical question here 93, a straight dead serious one. What do you feel that add-on brought forth? What did it add in your mind?

The post referenced Trump's recent tweets which I found objectionable. I guessed that many people would find them objectionable and I asked myself if there would be serious political blowback for Trump. I then surmised that his base would probably be OK with the tweets. To use your phrase, it seems that Trump's base is OK with him "flinging poo".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...fad9da0e10

Some snippets:


'Yet Trump appears committed to a base strategy for his reelection, and his provocations are widely viewed as efforts to fire up conservatives.'

'Jonathan M. Metzl, a Vanderbilt University sociology professor who has researched how conservative voters support policies that harm their interests, said Trump’s critics routinely underestimate the potency of his message — even one that is outright racist — to his core supporters.

It plays into an ‘us versus them’ formulation in which people are out to ‘take what’s ours’ — that’s the message, really,” said Metzl, author of “Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America’s Heartland.”

“When Trump frames it that way, it reaffirms that formulation: We’re under attack and I’m defending you,” Metzl said. He added: “I hate to use the word savvy, but that’s probably what it is. The more we talk about his outrageous behavior, the more it evacuates the middle ground” as Democrats move further left to counter Trump.

During Trump’s South Lawn appearance, a reporter asked if he was concerned that “many people saw your tweet as racist” and that white-nationalist groups were finding common cause with him.

“It doesn’t concern me,” Trump replied, “because many people agree with me.”'

I get it, because they are obviously "conservative voters [who] support policies that harm their interests", according to your source above (direct quote there sparkles).

Kind of sounds like your reasoning to include that is that you want to preen about how ignorant they are, doesnt it? And you are opining because they are so ignorant they wont care. Yes, we are certainly making some progress here.

And the other catch here is that "Trump’s critics routinely underestimate the potency of his message — even one that is outright racist — to his core supporters."

Okey dokey, now you are using as your backing that well, his core supporters are so ignorant that they either agree with racist comments, or they dont care.

Do you agree with those findings there 93? Is that why you are so antsy to make a comment about Trump's base (followers, bounce, supporters, bounce, voters)?

SO you realize that your reasoning of wanting to include Trump supporters in the flinging of poo comment is now evidenced by your specific reference to those same people being so fing stupid that they 'vote against their interests' and 'dont seem to be smart enough to realize that they are racists.'

That doesnt seem to a really good point in your favor about why you want to tie Trump (supporters, followers, base) to that sentence.

All your evidence you bring up simply states abuot what utter ignorant people they are. Funny that, isnt it.

I am sure you have an endless depth of respect for Trump (supporters, followers, base). It is just that you have a hard time expressing it, right?

Man that rain feels awesome on the side of my leg there, 93.

This is your argument in defense of your right to use the term "retard" and "short bus"? I'm confused.

But he does have a right to use them. it's called the First Amendment.

I thnk very few of Trump's supporters stand up and cheer when Trump does his tweets. It is a headache for most of us. But Trump has our support for other reasons than his decorum.

And yes, I am not clueless, as yall have intimated. I just wonder why the left makes such a big deal out so,e words. Twice in this thread yall have talked about the right to use certain words, as if yall would like to restrict it.

the Bard said, "A rose by any other name..."


the left says, you have to say it this way, or you are deplorable.

my mother said, sticks and stones...

i don't see the logic when a person of color objects to colored people. i see it even less when a white person objects. but I will conform to current accepted usage - that's what the left wamts, right. conformity.

(07-17-2019 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thnk very few of Trump's supporters stand up and cheer when Trump does his tweets. It is a headache for most of us. But Trump has our support for other reasons than his decorum.

And yes, I am not clueless, as yall have intimated. I just wonder why the left makes such a big deal out so,e words. Twice in this thread yall have talked about the right to use certain words, as if yall would like to restrict it.

the Bard said, "A rose by any other name..."


the left says, you have to say it this way, or you are deplorable.

my mother said, sticks and stones...

i don't see the logic when a person of color objects to colored people. i see it even less when a white person objects. but I will conform to current accepted usage - that's what the left wamts, right. conformity.

Bad timing on this post - what looks to be an entire arena is basically cheering his tweet...

(07-17-2019 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thnk very few of Trump's supporters stand up and cheer when Trump does his tweets. It is a headache for most of us. But Trump has our support for other reasons than his decorum.

And yes, I am not clueless, as yall have intimated. I just wonder why the left makes such a big deal out so,e words. Twice in this thread yall have talked about the right to use certain words, as if yall would like to restrict it.

the Bard said, "A rose by any other name..."


the left says, you have to say it this way, or you are deplorable.

my mother said, sticks and stones...

i don't see the logic when a person of color objects to colored people. i see it even less when a white person objects. but I will conform to current accepted usage - that's what the left wamts, right. conformity.

Bad timing on this post - what looks to be an entire arena is basically cheering his tweet...

You mean the tweet that one has to edit, alter, and chop, to get it to the form that y'all want to have it heard as, right? That one, right? Funny you forgot that salient point.

Actually to use your term, that is what one 'explicitly' has to do to that tweet to get it in that form (i.e. the definition of 'explicitly'). Perhaps that is a stretch of a nuance though.

I mean, how *dare* he say to someone 'go fix it elsewhere, come back, and tell us how it is done.' The sheer fing gall to say that. I shudder. Animal-style I say, animal-style.

I mean, how dare anyone tells a bunch of pretty much self-admitted socialists to do that. Honestly, I would cheer for that as well. Pretty safe bet you wouldnt I would surmise.

(07-17-2019 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thnk very few of Trump's supporters stand up and cheer when Trump does his tweets. It is a headache for most of us. But Trump has our support for other reasons than his decorum.

And yes, I am not clueless, as yall have intimated. I just wonder why the left makes such a big deal out so,e words. Twice in this thread yall have talked about the right to use certain words, as if yall would like to restrict it.

the Bard said, "A rose by any other name..."


the left says, you have to say it this way, or you are deplorable.

my mother said, sticks and stones...

i don't see the logic when a person of color objects to colored people. i see it even less when a white person objects. but I will conform to current accepted usage - that's what the left wamts, right. conformity.

Bad timing on this post - what looks to be an entire arena is basically cheering his tweet...

You mean the tweet that one has to edit, alter, and chop, to get it to the form that y'all want to have it heard as, right? That one, right? Funny you forgot that salient point.

Actually to use your term, that is what one 'explicitly' has to do to that tweet to get it in that form (i.e. the definition of 'explicitly'). Perhaps that is a stretch of a nuance though.

I mean, how *dare* he say to someone 'go fix it elsewhere, come back, and tell us how it is done.' The sheer fing gall to say that. I shudder. Animal-style I say, animal-style.

I mean, how dare anyone tells a bunch of pretty much self-admitted socialists to do that. Honestly, I would cheer for that as well. Pretty safe bet you wouldnt I would surmise.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

(07-17-2019 09:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thnk very few of Trump's supporters stand up and cheer when Trump does his tweets. It is a headache for most of us. But Trump has our support for other reasons than his decorum.

And yes, I am not clueless, as yall have intimated. I just wonder why the left makes such a big deal out so,e words. Twice in this thread yall have talked about the right to use certain words, as if yall would like to restrict it.

the Bard said, "A rose by any other name..."


the left says, you have to say it this way, or you are deplorable.

my mother said, sticks and stones...

i don't see the logic when a person of color objects to colored people. i see it even less when a white person objects. but I will conform to current accepted usage - that's what the left wamts, right. conformity.

Bad timing on this post - what looks to be an entire arena is basically cheering his tweet...

You mean the tweet that one has to edit, alter, and chop, to get it to the form that y'all want to have it heard as, right? That one, right? Funny you forgot that salient point.

Actually to use your term, that is what one 'explicitly' has to do to that tweet to get it in that form (i.e. the definition of 'explicitly'). Perhaps that is a stretch of a nuance though.

I mean, how *dare* he say to someone 'go fix it elsewhere, come back, and tell us how it is done.' The sheer fing gall to say that. I shudder. Animal-style I say, animal-style.

I mean, how dare anyone tells a bunch of pretty much self-admitted socialists to do that. Honestly, I would cheer for that as well. Pretty safe bet you wouldnt I would surmise.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

Do you know what this means?



Having watched the rally, that is the message they chanted. I will lay dollars to donuts you didnt bother to watch.

Please do tell, how long and how often did the crowd chant this? And perhaps you want to tell us to what they chanted this to? I'm sure you will know based on your intimate first hand knowledge, right?

If Trump wasn't keeping his promises and delivering the goods, his approval rating would be down near that of Congress.

But the economic indexes are up. Wages are up, the Dow is up, the S&P is up.
Employment is up, unemployment down. I don't care if he says the Bronx is a shithole. Kind of matches my opinion, anyway.

But back to "short bus'.

I am not a mean person. I don't like to hurt anybody's feeling. I would never say something like that to a Downs kid. I know Tanq would not either.

But Tanq was not talking to kids - he was talking to a Rice grad. I thought a Rice grad would be smart enough to understand that comment.

I need a good market to stay afloat until I can sell some land. Not going to get that from the Dems. They will bankrupt me, then compassionately send me a small check. Yay. They are more concerned with controlling the words in my mouth.

Better a bad talker who does good things than a good talker who does bad things.

(07-17-2019 09:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If Trump wasn't keeping his promises and delivering the goods, his approval rating would be down near that of Congress.

But the economic indexes are up. Wages are up, the Dow is up, the S&P is up.
Employment is up, unemployment down. I don't care if he says the Bronx is a shithole. Kind of matches my opinion, anyway.

But back to "short bus'.

I am not a mean person. I don't like to hurt anybody's feeling. I would never say something like that to a Downs kid. I know Tanq would not either.

But Tanq was not talking to kids - he was talking to a Rice grad. I thought a Rice grad would be smart enough to understand that comment.

I need a good market to stay afloat until I can sell some land. Not going to get that from the Dems. They will bankrupt me, then compassionately send me a small check. Yay. They are more concerned with controlling the words in my mouth.

Better a bad talker who does good things than a good talker who does bad things.

OO, no need to defend my 'retard' comment. It was wrong. Nor any need to defend 'short bus'.

I kind of laugh that these two, especially the lad, who is seemingly typically bouncy house to excrutiating lengths to be *ahem* precise *cough*, is so hell bent to tag the correctness of the offending 'kids'. Interesting change of face. Perhaps even 'special'.

Let the lad pull his hair out over the Orange man actually saying 'love it or leave it', and let him pull his hair out and chop, edit, and alter a comment to torture it into what he perceives to be 'racist'. I dont expect any more from the lad, to be honest.

But no need to defend the 'retard' comment. Mea culpa. The lad's moral preening to me in the rep ding was pretty funny ----- 'how *dare* you ever ever ever ever ever say or think that, even *if* you rethink it and pull it down.' Again, par for the course from my perspective.

So given that I doubt there will ever be a rehabilitation from that fine form moral posturing lesson seen today. Lolz.

I would actually prefer the lad to explain how the fab four's comments and slurs on the United States are *explicitly* the same as using the word term 'again' (literally 'explicitly the same' in the words he used) --- that is aside from the donk statement that both are 'criticisms'. Again, for such a donk on precision, this still seems like an idiotic statement when actually examined.

So let these two slam all they want on the 'retard' and the other comment. No need to feed the moral preeners here. They will either accept the mea culpa or not. Out of your hands, and out of mine, tbh. Lolz.

(07-17-2019 09:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 07:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thnk very few of Trump's supporters stand up and cheer when Trump does his tweets. It is a headache for most of us. But Trump has our support for other reasons than his decorum.

And yes, I am not clueless, as yall have intimated. I just wonder why the left makes such a big deal out so,e words. Twice in this thread yall have talked about the right to use certain words, as if yall would like to restrict it.

the Bard said, "A rose by any other name..."


the left says, you have to say it this way, or you are deplorable.

my mother said, sticks and stones...

i don't see the logic when a person of color objects to colored people. i see it even less when a white person objects. but I will conform to current accepted usage - that's what the left wamts, right. conformity.

Bad timing on this post - what looks to be an entire arena is basically cheering his tweet...

You mean the tweet that one has to edit, alter, and chop, to get it to the form that y'all want to have it heard as, right? That one, right? Funny you forgot that salient point.

Actually to use your term, that is what one 'explicitly' has to do to that tweet to get it in that form (i.e. the definition of 'explicitly'). Perhaps that is a stretch of a nuance though.

I mean, how *dare* he say to someone 'go fix it elsewhere, come back, and tell us how it is done.' The sheer fing gall to say that. I shudder. Animal-style I say, animal-style.

I mean, how dare anyone tells a bunch of pretty much self-admitted socialists to do that. Honestly, I would cheer for that as well. Pretty safe bet you wouldnt I would surmise.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

Do you know what this means?



Having watched the rally, that is the message they chanted. I will lay dollars to donuts you didnt bother to watch.

Please do tell, how long and how often did the crowd chant this? And perhaps you want to tell us to what they chanted this to? I'm sure you will know based on your intimate first hand knowledge, right?

And here we go, back to the fact that it's ironic that Trump based his entire campaign on criticizing the way things are here...

The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done. Regarding the Al Qaeda nonsense he brought up, you should read the fact check. It's a load of ****: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/trumps...lhan-omar/

Look, you can continue to rationalize away this rather disgusting behavior that says that you can't criticize America or an administration, but that's the wrong perspective, and you know it.