So next time you're at a special olympic event use the work imbecile.

Have fun with that you angry dic k.

How did I lie (is this like how you said AOC "mispoke in reference to Jan 6 but when I asked to point it you could never do that and kept attempting to give other examples)? bc that is how I remember it. Maybe Pete can provide a link.

Tell you what. When you can post a link from a group as noble and respected as the Special Olympics saying that "imbecile" is hate speech, I'll apologize and never use the word again.

I'll happily be on the same side of this issue as Special Olympics. You can be on the other side, you and Archie Bunker.

Don't know about their donations but no one here is holding their donations up as paragon of virtue like you did - and have done numerous times with Trump. I don't think either has had to pay fines and close charities bc they were self dealing like Trump did.

Please. You tried to put a sinister spin on what TDF did, because you cannot bring yourself to criticize what Pete did.

Everything is OK when you guys do it. Everything. we get it.

I made it extremely clear how AOC lied about her experience on January 6. Crystal clear. But again, she's a democrats so she can't be wrong.

Try using the word then.

So you know every single unethical thing that every republican has ever done, you've got it all right at your fingertips. But you have no knowledge of the recent revelation that Biden and Harris are fairly stingy.

Isn't that convenient for you?

OK. You are an imbecile.

I must have missed it so pls. tell me how she lied Re: Ronnies quote.

See as I said - you are a D ick.

Go take your medication.

For the last time (this is a waste for both of us), I'm defending Special Olympians here, you are using what they consider to be hate speech ..

It's beyond me why anyone would do that, and then so adamantly deny they're doing anything wrong, but you have that right.

If saying it's wrong to use hate speech against those people makes me a d*ck, then that's what I am.

You're a liar. How am I "using" it?

I said it once mocking the repubs. who had no problem with Trump making fun of a handicapped person and you have been saying I use it for what 2 years now. Shows what an angry #^&#^&#^&#^& you are.

Time to give yourself another time out.

good lord paul, you used it to mock someone if i remember correctly, and refuse to admit wrongdoing.

for the tenth time with trump, there’s video evidence of him using the same physical gestures to mock several others ( not disabled) who criticized him. in other words, there’s lots of evidence to show this is a normal reaction for him. not normal for a regular adult, but normal for him. this has been discussed many many times.

so unless you can read his mind, you have no way of knowing if he knew the reporter was disabled and was mocking that. if he was, it’s disgusting.

there’s plenty of irrefutable evidence of trump being a jerk. we dont need to make stuff up.

i don’t routinely defend his lack of morals. in this case, there’s lots of evidence your accusation is wrong.

why are you ignoring that?

time to change tampons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NM

Get a room

So far, the Republican Party has banned abortion, books, history lessons, and Disney, because they really, really, really hate cancel culture.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the gesture might not mean he was poking fun at the guys condition, as he aimed that identical gesture at several people over the years who didn’t have that disability. the video is there paul. just watch it and you can decide what it means. regardless, it’s a stupid gesture meant to belittle
people who dared to criticize him. fair to call him out for that. But there’s a great chance that he had no idea this guy had any physical
challenges, therefore a great chance he wasn’t poking fun at his disability.

there are a large list of names you can call trump apologists. why not pick something that’s not deeply offensive to these families who haven’t done anything to you?

you’re acting like, well, like trump.

if you want to make fun of those who think trump is a saint, heck i don’t blame you. i do it all the time.

but there are a hundred insulting words you could have used, that special olympics doesn’t consider hate speech to that community.

seems like you went way out of your way to insist on that one specific word, then you stubbornly refuse to concede that there’s anything wrong with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You want to ban "conservativism" because you really, really, really hate it. But you do love using the expansion of the particular into the general propaganda trick.

banning pornography = banning books, right out of Orwell.

but liberals banning To Kill A Mockingbird is ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Kovaleski said that he met with Mr. Trump repeatedly when he was a reporter for The Daily News covering the developer’s business career in the late 1980s, before joining The Post. “Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years,” Mr. Kovaleski said. “I’ve interviewed him in his office,” he added. “I’ve talked to him at press conferences. All in all, I would say around a dozen times, I’ve interacted with him as a reporter while I was at The Daily News.”

"So your saying it was just a coincidence?"

My god, man, for the tenth time...What I'm saying is there's video evidence of Trump making the same physical gestures over the years, to mock other people who he didn't like. Someone here posted the video. So obviously that's Trump's "go-to" gesture when he wants to mock somebody.

Either way, it's a very immature, stupid way to respond to someone who disagrees with you. But it's compelling evidence that Trump wasn't mocking the guy's disability.

Now, I'm not saying that's not what Trump was doing, either. He has made fun of people for being short and for looking funny, so he's not above making fun of someone's disability. But there's a meaningful chance that's not what he was doing here.

If you want to bash Trump, you could fill the oceans with irrefutable examples of him behaving horribly. We don't need to stretch the truth to show how deeply, deeply flawed he is.

If you find that unfair, I don't know what to tell you. I can criticize him every single time he does something disgusting. I don't need to reflexively defend every single thing he does, like you guys all do with democrats. But I can also admit when he does something good. You guys can't, and that's TDS.

"And you use 000s of insulting words here - Including imbecile. So use imbecile the next time you volunteer at special olympics and see the reaction you get or one of the many words you use to insult woman "

For the second time, if you can post a link from Special Olympics saying imbecile is hate speech, I will never use that word again, and I'll feel bad for having ever used it. But I couldn't find such a news story. As we both know, I did find a clip from Special Olympics saying clearly that the language you use, does constitute hate speech towards their community.

You used that word, not me. Your language, not mine, is universally considered to be hurtful to those people.

You're the only person on this forum that I know of, who has gone tattling to the moderators about what others (only the conservatives, naturally) have said. But you insist it's OK for you to use that word and other similar language.

You're like the kid in school who does something, and when someone does it back to him, he goes tattling to the grown-ups. Who doesn't love the kid who does that? Right?

I don't insult "women", there's that lying again. I insulted Hilary, who is as morally bankrupt as a person can get. She married a predator, she lied to protect him (said the republicans were framing him with the Lewinski story) and then she went on national TV and slut-shamed his victims. Classy! She's a morally bankrupt c--t.

That's not insulting "women". It's insulting her, and she deserves it every bit as much as Trump does.

You can't admit that, because she's a democrat. That's all that matters to you.

Why are all women tied to criticism of one woman? Why is it insulting all women, if I insult one woman?

The irony is that conservative principles are actually the antidote to Trumpism. Trumpism violates norms, upends US institutions, destabilizes the transfer of power, treats corruption as a spoil of office & abuses gov’t power to punish domestic enemies. It conserves nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just gave you an example of someone else you insulted constantly. So you just got caught lying again.

WDMSO said there’s no good in Trump.

I posted a nice story of trump donating his jet, after the commercial
airlines all told this family to go kick rocks.

you were dismissive of the story because it was old

So i posted many, many links of his recent generosity.

You said chump change for a billionaire

I agreed, but asked why you didn’t care that biden and harris were shown to be stingy.

you claimed to not know what i was referring to.

a perfect example. you deny and dismiss everything that could
make trump look like a human being. and you deny and dismiss anything that paints democrats in a negative light.

doesn’t matter what it is, the conservative is always wrong and the liberal is always right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I don't care whether there is a link or not.. "

You don't care that the Special Olympics begs people not to use that word. Good for you! Don't let them tell you what to do.

"I didn't tattle. So your lying again. Bruce posted the rules in response to the vile posts from SeaDangles and I asked why bother posting the rules if they allow Seadangles to do what he wants and ignores the rules."

Oh, I see. You didn't "tattle". You merely asked the moderator why he wasn't punishing someone (naturally a conservative!) for breaking the rules. And that's very, very different from tattling, because.........

What you did, is the textbook definition of tattling.

"See that is insulting but you think it is ok."

I don't deny that I insulted Hilary. That was deliberate. I deny that I'm insulting anyone else, when I insult Hilary. When I am very obviously singling out Hilary, it's not my fault if that's traumatic for your delicate sensibilities.

Are you insulting all men when you insult Trump?

So it's OK for you to insult a specific individual. But when I do it, somehow I'm insulting the entire demographic that the person falls into.

When liberals insult, say, Sarah Palin, they are only insulting her, so that's OK. But when I insult Hilary, you say I am insulting all women.

That just reeks of consistency and common sense, Paul.

It's totally fine for you to use hate speech, but you cry to TDF when Dangles does it.

Everything is always OK when the left does it.

No, one ever said it was, did they?

And his 10K donation is nothing for a billionaire. He self dealt w/his charity and was ripping it off.

i’m not saying Trump is a good person. you keep responding as if you somehow think that’s what i’m saying.

he has done some good things. if
you want to argue a billionaire should do more good than he does, i agree with you 100%. A hundred percent.

my intent wasn’t to show he is good. My intent was to show that juts wrong to say he’s never done anything good. My intent was to show that he has, and improved it beyond any doubt.

Saying he should do more good, is a different question. A very different question.

Everything has to be all or nothing with you guys. He has to be pure evil.

Why does trump advocate for school choice? His kids are never going to be stuck in crappy urban schools, so it’s never going to benefit him or his kids. Yet he’s passionate about school
choice.

Why?

You might argue that he’s only doing it to placate his conservative base.

But then why did he advocate for the criminal justice reform that liberals have wanted for decades, and worth noting they obama
didn’t give liberals even though the democrats controlled congress for his first 2 years?

Many conservatives hated trumps criminal justice reform, including me. But he did it.

Why?

And why can’t liberals give him credit for delivering something they have been asking for, and which Bush and Obama refused to give them?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of the reasons I put "conservative" or "conservatism" in quotes is that it depends on who is defining what the principles of it are. Their are various and numerous definitions. It is what you want it to be.

Here is one defining list of principals for political "conservatism" provided by Congressman Mike Johnson--the rule of law, limited government, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and human dignity. Trump has abided by the laws until proven otherwise. He is far more for limited government than Progressives and you are.He certainly provided for American strength, he was typically fiscally responsible/irresponsible with government spending, he was more free market oriented then Progressives (even his China tariffs were an attempt to free up Trade for American products with China), and he valued human dignity more than Progressivism would, as in: "Because all men are created equal and in the image of God, every human life has inestimable dignity and value, and every person should be measured only by the content of their character. A just government protects life, honors marriage and family as the primary institutions of a healthy society, and embraces the vital cultural influences of religion and morality. Public policy should always encourage education and emphasize the virtue of hard work as a pathway out of-poverty, while public assistance programs should be reserved only for those who are truly in need. In America, everyone who plays by the rules should get a fair shot. By preserving these ideals, we will maintain the goodness of America that has been the secret to our greatness."

"Norms" have a bit of the same problem. Whose "norms"? Yours? Your political norm says that conservatism leads to tyranny.

Progressivism has been "upending," as you put it, U.S. institutions far more effectively than you think Trump has since it began gripping power.

The transfer of power has been stable, regardless of complaints and demonstrations. It's a politicized red herring to claim that Trump destabilized it, or that there is some principle of "Trumpism" to destabilize the transfer of power.

Corruption as a spoil of office and using government power to "punish" anyone, including domestic enemies are nothing new or uncommon or particularly "Trumpist." Progressives are no more pure in office than anyone else. Actually, they are pretty efficient at "punishing" their enemies.

I don't know if I am a "conservative." I have not labeled myself. Except possibly to the degree that I want to conserve many of our founding principles, especially the protection of individual liberty protected by our constitutional order.

Progressivism seeks to change that order, and create a central State that controls every aspect of our lives, dictating exactly what our rights as individuals are depending on the current whims of elitist "experts." It seems to me that you would prefer such a State.

It really is just a question of whether you believe that government should be: (A) competent, efficient and non-intrusive, or (B) discredited and ultimately destroyed.

Conservatives have always straddled between A and B. Trump just ended the straddle and went all B.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most forms of government can be (A). The NAZIs were very competent and efficient.

All governments are (B). Our constitutional republican form is one of the least intrusive. Progressivism is far more intrusive than our founded constitutional order.

Your choice of what "It really is just a question of" doesn't value freedom or individual liberty or unalienable rights as part of the question. Which is right in line with Progressivism. Probably because Freedom, individual liberty, and unalienable rights mess with the efficiency of government. That's actually one of the reasons Progressivism doesn't embrace those values. Authoritarian forms of government consider it right and competent when the ruling elite "experts" distribute whatever rights it deems efficiently workable in and through the governing system they impose.

You always seem confused about what you think the founders thought and where we are close to 250 years later.

As in what books, marriages, speech and religions are allowable?
Qualified immunity for police so they can be above the law?
Government control of corporate decisions as in Floriduh?
Political parties having control of government?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I am confused about is your point.

You keep claiming to have the simple answers, meanwhile your party had years to pass an alternative to “Obamacare”
Never did it
Had years to pas an infrastructure bill
Never did it
Had years to change the status in the Middle East
Never did it
Governing isn’t attacking the other side.
Governing is getting #^&#^&#^&#^& done.
The Trumplicans or Christian Dominionists are not a governing party, because they’re all about power and it’s not that they're particularly religious really--they just want to use belief as a means to force a restrictive society in which they are on top and they can go after people they dislike.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Christians and Theists never wanted to be an earthly, secular, governing party. They did want a society in which they were free to practice their religion and godly beliefs. That's one of the main reasons they created a governing document that made sacrosanct all the individual rights that they did not grant government power over.

PeteFicans see that as an impediment to competent and efficient government, and see centralized authoritarian government as the solution to whatever ails us--and "as a means to force a restrictive society in which they are on top and they can go after people they dislike"--and so much more. That is the efficient, competent, beauty of the Progressive way.

And what does all that nonsense have to do with your point in "You always seem confused about what you think the founders thought and where we are close to 250 years later.

As in what books, marriages, speech and religions are allowable?
Qualified immunity for police so they can be above the law?
Government control of corporate decisions as in Floriduh?
Political parties having control of government?"

I still don't see whatever point you were making with that unhinged cluster of words.

Not very observant are you
There’s a party that wants to control books that are allowed, who’s allowed to marry, what’s acceptable speech and what religions are permissible.
Supports qualified immunity.
Thinks that financial retribution is appropriate reaction to criticism of a political act.
And as McConnell said, one party places itself above country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We know how you love McConnell.

Pres Trump: “We grew the conservative movement into a working people’s movement… And we are never ever going back… Our movement must continue to pursue a populist-nationalist economic agenda that puts working families before globalist politicians…”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can always follow the money

Ron DeSantis has banned all K-5 math textbook publishers from the state of Florida except one: the company owned by fellow GOP governor Glenn Youngkin's private equity firm.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device