(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the object of of his oh-so-bad message of 'again' that you had a diaper hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four. That is is described your so-called 'terrible' message; i.e. the word message that you so furiously dance your patented lad world irish jig on.

**** off you little twerp, all you can do is run around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.