Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
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 |
The alleged conservatives here have claimed for years that the private sector does things better than government. Reedy Creek is a great example of this. Republicans have now abandoned that philosophy over their hurt feelings.
Locals joke when they cross over into Disney property how the roads are flawlessly smooth asphalt. “Why can’t Mickey take over I-4?” Maybe Disney will secede from Floriduh, though since DeathSantis only won by 32,000 votes in 2018, there’s 80,000 Disney employees in Florida and 70,000 Floridians died of COVID…….I would guess they’ll let him be like Jafar and watch him turn himself into a Genie in a bottle Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Yea, fascism works well
Gov. Greg Abbott's "enhanced" truck inspections turned up zero drugs or migrants, but cost Texas consumers and businesses an estimated $4.2 billion. Delays resulted in $240 million in spoiled produce alone. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The $4.2 billion that Greg Abbott burned at the border could have fixed the Texas power grid. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
The federal government consistently spends more than it takes in (and it takes in more than it constitutionally should). Texas is among the most fiscally responsible states. According to Invester's Business Daily--"Alaska leads all states in money socked away. Other states that took in considerably more than they spent included North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Texas." |
Here is something fascinating to me: Macron had nearly exact same job approval rating as President Biden does today and he just won 58% of the vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com