You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Fuck off, mitch. Of the very long list of stupid, shitty things you've said, this is up there near the top. Don't talk about his service or motivations or try to impugn them. Yes, you're a liberal, yes you have socialist leanings, yes you're a Bernie bro, you don't have to be a little bitch also.
Re: US Politics Thread
Fuck off, mitch. Of the very long list of stupid, shitty things you've said, this is up there near the top. Don't talk about his service or motivations or try to impugn them. Yes, you're a liberal, yes you have socialist leanings, yes you're a Bernie bro, you don't have to be a little bitch also.
Aww were you offended?
What a snowflake.
If my president can say and do whatever he wants then i can do the same.
You say shit on here that offends me all the time...doesn’t seem to bother you.
I will say what i damn well please.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Bingo!
Despite being the one that accuses me of being a cheerleader for political parties of the sort of NFL football teams, RF shows his understanding of American political parties as exactly like a super fam cheering for his favorite NFL team. Because clearly 1850s Democrats are exactly the same as 2018 Democrats. Its truly a brilliant and astute analysis by a deep thinker.
Huh? I stated that offering people free shit is a great way to attract voters, and used the fact that despite 1920s era Democrats supporting Jim Crow and Segregation, black Americans left the Republican party to join the Democratic because Democrats embraced legislation that gave them "free" shit. You can certainly argue the promise of strong labor unions, and worker's rights is a more accurate representation of their platform than "free" shit, but you can't deny that the racist beliefs of the party were overlooked in favor of those worker friendly policies. I never said that the party of 1850 is the same of 2018, but you didn't post to make a counterpoint or engage in discussion. You posted to attack me, because reality doesn't fit your talking points.
Bingo!
I’m truly sad that you are offended or bothered by getting things for free, except I’m going to guess that when you signed up for the military you got a giant bonus from the taxpayers for free! Unless you think signing your name and a piece of paper is some sort of labor that is worth rewarding $20,000. Which I’m sure you do.
The military does offer a signing bonus to many job specialties, just as the private sector does. I had my college paid for under an ROTC scholarship. You can attack me and by proxy the main driver of how the US Military recruits its officer corps. I'm not offended by your rhetoric, because I don't take you seriously. You're clearly acting out, and posting on this forum to insult me provides you with enjoyment. I personally think that a young American who enlists into the military in a time of war is certainly entitled to some financial compensation and recruitment incentives. I do make the distinction between a youth who chooses to serve and one who chooses to get blazed and work a McJob. That's the kind of society I want, and what we're all supposed to be working for. If you want to do your own thing, go for it, just don't expect me or anyone to pretend some kid living at home with his parents is equal to the 19 year old dodging bullets in Afghanistan.
Bingo!
Based on earlier comments about Who should and should not have the right to vote I’m going to guess that you belong to either the federalist or the Whig political party both of which died out in the early 1800s. I’m also going to guess that you’ve never heard of those two political parties before.
Yea, you schooled me Mitch. You're the only person on this forum to take 6th grade social studies.
Bingo!
In comments like these you choose not to address who does and does not have the right to vote and instead choose to be glib and sarcastic. You’re also the same person that sleeps underneath an American flag every night in your bed as your preferred choice of comforter. Isn’t it so much fun getting to pick and choose who has the right to vote and he doesn’t? You should start a Facebook club that allows white men to pontificate on these sorts of topics.
What are you talking about? When did I ever mention anything about a right to vote? You literally created an argument with me just so you could insult me. C'mon dude.
I really truly believe that you went to Iraq to protect the rights of rich white men. We all thank you for that service.
Finally, White men will have their say in a country where they are so deeply oppressed.
Bingo.................
I went to Iraq because I was ordered to. Everyone knows you're just swinging low because you're using me as a proxy for all of your anger from your perception of how the country is being governed. I enlisted, went to basic training, and eventually received an ROTC scholarship all before 9/11. In our Military Science 101 class 2 days after 9/11, I said I thought we shouldn't go to Afghanistan because it would be another Vietnam. I was fucking 19 years old and didn't know my ass from a hole in the ground, but that was my position. A year later when Iraq was on the horizon, I said we shouldn't attack Saddam just because he has WMDs. Iraq was a sovereign nation, and so long as they weren't actively trying to engage the US in conflict or our allies, we have no right to invade them. I'm consistent. Or at least I was developing those critical thinking skills in college while all of this occured. You seem to have never developed them.
I joined the Army in the peace time. I had no idea 9/11 and Iraq were going to happen. But it would be pretty fucking shitty to sign up, and then refuse to deploy when war was declared.
But sure, post this nonsense and show how unhinged you are. You don't know me, Mitch. I'm not the boogieman you make out to be. If this is what you're going to post, I'm going to ignore you. I have no interest in playing a part in your fetish.
Re: US Politics Thread
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1051976479888818181
"The Court agrees with Mr. Trump's argument because the tweet in question constitutes 'rhetorical hyperbole' normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement," Otero wrote.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she and Trump had an affair in 2006, after he married first lady Melania Trump and she gave birth to their son, Barron. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.
Daniels is also suing Trump and his former personal attorney Michael Cohen over the $130,000 payment made to her to keep silent about the alleged affair in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The ruling on Monday plays no role in that case, which continues to work its way through the court system.
In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Otero ruled Trump is entitled to attorney's fees.
[...]
Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, responded to the ruling on Twitter and said: "Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance."
Avenatti filed a notice of appeal Monday evening in Daniels' defamation case against Trump.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1051976479888818181
"The Court agrees with Mr. Trump's argument because the tweet in question constitutes 'rhetorical hyperbole' normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement," Otero wrote.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says she and Trump had an affair in 2006, after he married first lady Melania Trump and she gave birth to their son, Barron. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.
Daniels is also suing Trump and his former personal attorney Michael Cohen over the $130,000 payment made to her to keep silent about the alleged affair in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The ruling on Monday plays no role in that case, which continues to work its way through the court system.
In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Otero ruled Trump is entitled to attorney's fees.
[...]
Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, responded to the ruling on Twitter and said: "Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance."
Avenatti filed a notice of appeal Monday evening in Daniels' defamation case against Trump.
Fucking love it! Fuck Avenatti!!
Re: US Politics Thread
Anyway, want to discuss a real issue? How about that a de facto citizen was cut into little pieces and the US government is covering for the known perpetrators - despite promising they'd take swift action against them.
Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered and absolutely nothing will be done about it.
Re: US Politics Thread
Anyway, want to discuss a real issue? How about that a de facto citizen was cut into little pieces and the US government is covering for the known perpetrators - despite promising they'd take swift action against them.
Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered and absolutely nothing will be done about it.
What? That's outrageous! Almost as bad as allowing American citizens to be killed at an embassy...
When are you guys going to figure out that both sides are guilty of the same shit while you keep pretending these things are one sided?
