CenterBHSFan;1869132 wrote:Ok, you know that the left, because of the far left, is in trouble when MSNBC (morning joe and company) is making fun of antifa and the black block and some other groups.

The question is was Joe's criticism fast enough to absolve him from being an Antifa sympathizer?

I forgot to mention this gem from Bernie today. So many Americans scared of the 2k Nazis in the US. You may wanna sit this one out while ANTIFA is rioting and people are flooded in Houston.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Commander of Awesome;1869145 wrote:It's not a straw man. If you're going to argue with logical fallacies, at least understand them correctly.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Link with definitions and examples of each.

Cries about a poster being smug; continues to be smug regardless. Where is my logical fallacy? I will wait for a legitimate example that doesn't consist of you having aa unfavorable reaction to my argument. Apparently you don't know what a straw man is, because you have used it several times.

Commander of Awesome;1869145 wrote:My insecurity has nothing to do with this. I'm pointing out how stupid your example was. You had to resort to finding a no name NPO with a liberal bias to illustrate your narrative. You're trying to make a point from an obscure reference.

If it's not an insecurity, then tell me why you believe I was painting a broad generalization on anyone who leans left based on that one specific tweet? I have said it several times I wasn't and you won't buy it. I can tell you're insecure, because you're so rattled you created a new thread that is the exact opposite of this thread (which also happens to be redundant since we have the disgusting with Trump thread), LMAO. You haven't been active in the in the politics forum since the election, and now all of a sudden you have the sudden surge. Yeah, definitely not insecure and you definitely didn't think I was grouping you with that tweet.

Also, the tweet was making its rounds all over the internet. I posted in this thread, because it was the appropriate thread to post it in. I know you're a stubborn little child, but I know your not that dense to think why it was posted in this thread. It was another example of "modern progressivism," and also the political landscape we will currently live in. I love how you conveniently leave the part where I brought up our political landscape as well.

Commander of Awesome;1869145 wrote:No you didn't. You didn't like my post, so you put a false label on it. Allow me to retort using same tactic.

Example: "Your continued QQing about the way the media portrays the right and coddles the left means you lack the ability for non simple thinking.

Yes I did, because that is originally what I said. You must have very short term memory.

After I said " I was wondering how somebody would defend this tweet" you literally said:

"I love how some shitty NPO now speaks for the political party you don't personally endorse. Irony at it's finest." (which is not what I said) Then i responded and said I wasn't claiming the tweet spoke for all on the left and took a jab at all virtue signalers who are nowhere to be found with people suffering in Houston, which I assume this is what made you rattled?

In the same post I bring up the hypocrisy of the logic you used to call every Trump voter a bigot, while crying about me somehow painting a broad generalization on people. Spare me the bullshit, the comparison was about using broad generalizations and the fact you choose when they are appropriate. It was a good example, and sorry you were exposed for painting a much larger broad generalization, which you can't even refute.

Commander of Awesome;1869145 wrote:Now this is a straw man, LMFAO.

You're the one who called me smug and said it's no surprised based on my posts in the politics forum, but yeah such a straw man response from me calling your a hypocrite!

Commander of Awesome;1869145 wrote:I legit have no recollection of leaving the OC. I'm sure my absence was torture for everyone. Thanks for welcoming me back?

It's not really hard to tell since you are one of the more active posters here, especially in the Cleveland threads. There aren't many posters here and most of them sure as hell aren't active in the politics forum.

Commander of Awesome;1869145 wrote:Not liking Hillary is not an excuse for the abomination we have as the president of the united states. Do you think we're better off with Trump? Looking back, was voting for Trump a logical, rational and decent thing to do?

And not liking Trump is not an excuse for voting for the type of president Hillary would have been. She is also a scumbag piece of shit. You and the vast majority of this country could have voted third party, and we all wouldn't be confined to this stupid ass two party structure. Based on how the left behaved when Bush was president, something tells me the "trump" excuse is just a cop out, and the left would still be acting the same way regardless of who the GOP had as their candidate.

No I don't think we are better offer. I didn't think we would be better off with Hillary either. This is why my election depression began as soon as I knew Trump was the GOP candidate and the next option was either a scam artist socialist or one of the biggest piece of shit and biggest failure politicians of our lifetime. I had plenty of time to sulk about our next president prior to the election. When you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, eventually you end up with a pile of shit. I didn't vote for Trump, but I can see some legitimate reasons why people did. I think the most logical vote would have been neither.

Answer this question I asked a couple weeks in this thread to our left leaning posters. Without mentioning Trump/GOP/conservatives/etc what has the left done to entice any of those 58 million votes to vote for democrat candidates?

What a stupid argument. Which 3rd party candidate did you like? They were both batshit insane.

Commander of Awesome;1869167 wrote:What a stupid argument. Which 3rd party candidate did you like? They were both batshit insane.

Gary Johnson wasn't the best choice for the libertarian party, but I would take him and their party's principles over the pile of shit the DNC/GOP threw at us. At least with him nobody would be getting droned (Aleppo joke in there) and he was actually the only candidate who legitimately wanted to decease our debt, which none of these old politicians want to talk about, because they won't be alive to worry about it. Show me a dem that would decrease our debt (not throw a parade for decreasing the deficit) and I will vote for him/her.

It's also not a stupid argument. As long as everyone thinks there are only two options, neither party has a real incentive to make any real changes that does anything beyond finding ways to win elections.

like_that;1869168 wrote:Gary Johnson wasn't the best choice for the libertarian party, but I would take him and their party's principles over the pile of shit the DNC/GOP threw at us. At least with him nobody would be getting droned (Aleppo joke in there) and he was actually the only candidate who legitimately wanted to decease our debt, which none of these old politicians want to talk about, because they won't be alive to worry about it. Show me a dem that would decrease our debt (not throw a parade for decreasing the deficit) and I will vote for him/her.

Sure, the debt is an issue you feel strong about it, I get it. However, Gary Johnson was abysmal as a candidate. And expecting him to get in party line is the same hack thinking that got trump elected. Soooo.....

like_that;1869169 wrote:It's also not a stupid argument. As long as everyone thinks there are only two options, neither party has a real incentive to make any real changes that does anything beyond finding ways to win elections.

In general I agree, but I'm not voting for the flying spaghetti monster just bc he's different. You want to be taken seriously, then act like it.

Commander of Awesome;1869171 wrote:Sure, the debt is an issue you feel strong about it, I get it. However, Gary Johnson was abysmal as a candidate. And expecting him to get in party line is the same hack thinking that got trump elected. Soooo.....



In general I agree, but I'm not voting for the flying spaghetti monster just bc he's different. You want to be taken seriously, then act like it.

Using your rapistberger and ray Lewis argument, who do you root for when they play each other? It's the same thing as the 2016 election.

Also, still waiting for an answer. What has the left done to appeal any of those voters who didn't vote for Hillary?

like_that;1869172 wrote:Using your rapistberger and ray Lewis argument, who do you root for when they play each other? It's the same thing as the 2016 election.

Also, still waiting for an answer. What has the left done to appeal any of those voters who didn't vote for Hillary?

Great question, if you found the right answer to this on how to appeal to these voters you'd prob have a $$$ contract with the DNC.

Here's a look into how the DNC is thinking about it.

https://www.facebook.com/podsaveamerica/videos/301343153668414/?hc_ref=ARTxUIJVAKLkxbLlVuzV30m5MAfqoTjlNu2Slvj6yerxdC3mhLByd3-j5xaHrZtNpTA

Well, I think one of the clear and obvious things that the DNC can easily do is to get off of the intersectionality train. Stop worrying about damn pronouns and get back to figuring out ways to curtail poverty. In fact, I would guess that that is THE biggest trouble the democrat party has the past several years.
Also, they need to pull themselves back towards the center and avoid the communistic ideals that are leading them down the rabbit hole.

For the love of God, they were just slaughtered in the ballot box last year - to the point where even small town democrats were voted out of office because of their party affiliation not because of anything that they might have done wrong or done right - and they still can't see the forest for the trees. That should have been the backhand to the mouth that woke up enough people to be aware enough to KNOW that the party is headed towards chaos.
But it wasn't.

The answer is they have done nothing at all.

O-Trap;1869099 wrote:Antifa are not anarchists. They believe in state-sanctioned censorship of whatever they deem hate speech.

If they believe in state-sanctioned anything, or even any justification for a governmental structure to exist at all, they're not anarchists.

They believe in violently having a democratic election overturned so they will be happy and once again in charge of speech and policy. They are leading the wave of insubordination, lawlessness, and disregard for authority. They are anarchists. Of course, if the left wishes to continue to change the definition of words in order to fit their narrative and agenda, well, what's new.

like_that;1869168 wrote:Gary Johnson wasn't the best choice for the libertarian party, but I would take him and their party's principles over the pile of shit the DNC/GOP threw at us. At least with him nobody would be getting droned (Aleppo joke in there) and he was actually the only candidate who legitimately wanted to decease our debt, which none of these old politicians want to talk about, because they won't be alive to worry about it. Show me a dem that would decrease our debt (not throw a parade for decreasing the deficit) and I will vote for him/her.

What if everything you believe about the peril caused by the outstanding balance of U.S. Treasuries has been obsolete since World War II? Beardsley Ruml, the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time wrote this in 1946 after the gold standard was eliminated for the war.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.[FONT=&quot]The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][INDENT]Free of the Money Market[/INDENT]Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The United States is a national state which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements.[/FONT]

majorspark;1869149 wrote:The question is was Joe's criticism fast enough to absolve him from being an Antifa sympathizer?

He is a complete phony.

Bill proposes punishment for not using preferred pronouns

Aug. 28, 2017 - 6:35 - California legislator calling for jail time for caregivers refusing to use preferred names of transgender residents









With all the problems we have: massive debt, unemployment, terrorism, regulatory overreach, obamaKare disaster ...............and this is what the left is worried about. God save the republic.

Saw that the other day. California is a clown show.

QuakerOats;1869210 wrote:Bill proposes punishment for not using preferred pronouns

Aug. 28, 2017 - 6:35 - California legislator calling for jail time for caregivers refusing to use preferred names of transgender residents









With all the problems we have: massive debt, unemployment, terrorism, regulatory overreach, obamaKare disaster ...............and this is what the left is worried about. God save the republic.

Are you going to link to the actual bill or continue to copy and paste from your favorite sites?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219

The pronoun part is dumb, but the rest isn't that bad considering old folks homes have an awful reputation for caring for their patients.

ptown_trojans_1;1869219 wrote:Are you going to link to the actual bill or continue to copy and paste from your favorite sites?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219

The pronoun part is dumb, but the rest isn't that bad considering old folks homes have an awful reputation for caring for their patients.

So basically when politicians vote against the bill, because of the pronoun language, they will be accused of hating the elderly and hoping they will die. Loaded bills are a joke.

like_that;1869222 wrote:So basically when politicians vote against the bill, because of the pronoun language, they will be accused of hating the elderly and hoping they will die. Loaded bills are a joke.

Yeah, such is nature of the current political climate. Politics sucks.

like_that;1869222 wrote:So basically when politicians vote against the bill, because of the pronoun language, they will be accused of hating the elderly and hoping they will die. Loaded bills are a joke.

Like all the dipshits on twitter talking about the Hurricane Sandy bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Commander of Awesome;1869105 wrote:

As for the second part of your post. I didn't take ball and go home. I'm still posting, lolfail. As for my post, I'd love to continue to hear ppl justify why voting for trump was a moral thing to do. That's like buying a Rapistfucker jersey but saying you don't support rape. Buying a Ray Lewis jersey, but saying you don't support murder. That is hypocrisy. LOLFAIL for not seeing that.

So you ask for proof that you called all Trump voters bigots, he links and quotes it, then you double down on the insane statement by repeating it just in a more "PC" way?

Come on, statements like that, and most from the left (see Hillary's deplorables) are the main reason this asshole is in office. People like you put him there with BS statements like that.

QuakerOats;1869205 wrote:They believe in violently having a democratic election overturned so they will be happy and once again in charge of speech and policy. They are leading the wave of insubordination, lawlessness, and disregard for authority. They are anarchists. Of course, if the left wishes to continue to change the definition of words in order to fit their narrative and agenda, well, what's new.

Replacing one brand of governance with another brand of governance is not lawlessness. Wishing to overthrow a democratic election in order to institute a different authority structure or person is not lawlessness.

They don't disregard authority. They want to change the authority.

Anarchism adheres to self-ownership and the NAP as philosophical foundations. That doesn't mean they oppose violence if it's in defense of liberty, person, or property, but it does mean they oppose violence for any other reason, because violence for any other reason is the application of force, which creates a hierarchy, and anarchism opposes hierarchy.

10 months after the election and the crazy left still has absolutely no idea why and how he won.


And they are the self-proclaimed enlightened ones.

QuakerOats;1869244 wrote:10 months after the election and the crazy left still has absolutely no idea why and how he won.


And they are the self-proclaimed enlightened ones.

There are those on the left who figured it out quickly, though admittedly, most seem to want to chalk it up to racism or chauvinism.

Pie/Walker (whose video has been shared here in the past) gets into it at about the 1:56 mark:

[video=youtube;GLG9g7BcjKs][/video]

The media today is complaining that Melania wore stiletto's on the plane into Texas. You can't make this shit up.