monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@gungasnake,

No. If you make a post like this one you are condemned out of your own mouth a racist

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Nonsense. Snd the blue doog democrats dont exisr. They allc became republicaons under nixon.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Stop dodging

I really don't pay any attention to this "Waters" person you mention. I was responding to McG's "gotcha" question, not "dodging". But if you can come up with something more specific I can tell you whether I feel someone's behavior deserves condemnation.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

During those eight years, how many members of the Obama Administration were harassed or threatened?
Stop dodging.
Do you approve of this **** or not.

Pro‑lifers generally have a very great energy and commitment to their protests. If this sort of thing is allowed to stand as an acceptable form of protest, pro‑choice politicians are going to need to spend the rest of their lives ensconced behind sound‑proofed walls.

However, flooding into a public store or restaurant and yelling loud chants would seem to warrant prosecution for disturbing the peace. And following someone around for such treatment would seem to justify restraining orders.

I suggest that Republicans move to take legal action against these leftists.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

oralloy wrote:
MontereyJack wrote:
Do we really need to remind you of the eight years of mindless, irrational hostility you displayed agaihnst Obama,
No such hostility. That's just Democratic propaganda to excuse Obama's failures as a president.
Nonsense.

Not at all. Obama wrecked his own presidency through his extremism and opposition to civil rights, and accusations of imaginary Republican obstructionism are just attempts to excuse his failures.

MontereyJack wrote:

And the blue dog democrats dont exist. They all became republicans under nixon.

I post, therefore I am.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I post, therefore I am.

Careful he might accuse you of plagiarism while some drunken illegal is likely to kill someone soon. Of course, those crimes have no correlation to each other but it has not stopped people from saying so when citing any situation to minimize the actions they support.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I suggest that Republicans move to take legal action against these leftists.

That is what the DHS Secretary should have done. Forced the restaurant to call the cops.

The Sarah Sanders case wasn't anything illegal or even border line illegal. I'm not suggesting this was something you were claiming; just making a separate statement in the context of my first.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The Sarah Sanders case wasn't anything illegal or even border line illegal.

But refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is, eh? Or so you've all been saying, before the Supreme Court schooled you.

1 Reply

Under Trump, U.S. debt has now risen to $21 trillion.

That should dispel any illusions that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

The debt is now on track toward the highest level in U.S. history.

http://www.newsweek.com/debt-deficit-trump-cbo-recession-996208

2 Replies

@layman,

Personally, I find it more wrong to exclude entire classes of people, especially those afforded special legal protections than I do individual people who have made morally reprehensible decisions and whose own behaviors have pushed the boundary’s of decency.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Do you remember when people posted articles back in january when tax revenue for that one month had picked up?

Jokers

0 Replies

@firefly,

Mitt Romney just secured the nomination for GOP candidate in Utah. How about that????

I like Mitt, but I was very disappointed when he showed up to interview with Trump for a cabinet position. It made him look so freaking weak. But, I don't live in Utah....the citizens of Utah decide who represents them, as the Constitution has defined.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

It made him look so freaking weak.

That is because he is weak, and a globalist.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

But at least he is not a flaming asshole, like some folks.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

But at least he is not a flaming asshole, like some folks.

That is not what you said in 2012. Hypocrite. And leave your friends out of this. Cool

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

people who have made morally reprehensible decisions and whose own behaviors have pushed the boundary’s of decency.

Well, ya know, Ma, some would put the homosexuals that you and your homeys love, and who french kiss, grope, and goose each other while flaunting themselves in underwear on a float during a gay pride parade, in that category, know what I'm sayin?

I know I would.

1 Reply

@layman,

Cool. If they did that in front of the cake shop owner then I'd fully support him refusing to bake a cake for that particular gay couple...based on actions they took.

Well, not the french kissing piece; that doesn't cross any lines unless it's excessive.

I stood at the Chicago Gay Pride parade for about 75 minutes on Sunday layman. I'm still not infected with the gay bug. I don't think you can catch it by talking online to someone who was there either.

1 Reply

Oh Oh!

Quote:

The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.

“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.

“The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/its-science-journal-says-liberals-not-conservatives-are-psychotic/

0 Replies

"
Supreme Court finally rejects infamous Korematsu decision on Japanese-American internment

Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative majority upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban Tuesday, but in the process -- thanks to a heated argument with Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- finally overturned the infamous 1944 Supreme Court decision blessing internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

In her dissent to the majority's ruling on the travel ban, Sotomayor compared the decision to the Korematsu v. US case, saying there are "stark parallels" in the reasoning.
"
Too bad it is sullied at the loss to the freedom of religion and Muslims! Maybe 70+ years from now this atrocity too will be amended, sooner I hope!

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I stood at the Chicago Gay Pride parade for about 75 minutes on Sunday layman.

I'll bet you did! Did you like what you saw?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know