If "this has nothing to do with religion", what prompted a 29 year old US citizen to go on a shooting rampage at a gay nightclub?
I 100% guarantee that if a fundamentalist christian had committed these horrific acts, the MSM would literally NEVER stop pointing out the religious angle.
Jesus, dude, it takes less than a sentence for you to turn this into political ammunition.
For the record, if the shooter had been a Christian, I'm pretty sure the MSM would still quote the father of the shooter saying it had nothing to do with Christianity. Not because that statement is true, but because he's the father of the shooter. Do you want to know why I'm so sure of this? Because when an angry white guy shot two Muslims in Chapel Hill last year, the media quoted the shooter's wife as saying it had nothing to do with religion and was instead a parking dispute, even though that was highly unlikely.
I'm also pretty sure that reporting the shooter pledged allegiance to the Islamic State constitutes "pointing out the religious angle".
So not only are you turning this into political ammunition, you're twisting the truth to do it.
Trump was the first remaining presidential candidate to speak about the massacre, tweeting Sunday morning about the “really bad shooting in Orlando."
What is this, a race? First person to tweet about the bloodiest massacre on US soil since 9/11 wins?
1) No need to take the Lord's name in vain. Also, my first 2 sentences focused on all that are suffering due to this terrorist attack.
2) You come across as angry at me for pointing out the dad's incorrect statement. Weird.
3) You then reference a different case in which you feel the shooter's wife made an incorrect statement. Pot meet kettle.
4) Your claim that "pointing out the religious angle" was met is correct. But my entire statement was actually the following: "I 100% guarantee that if a fundamentalist christian had committed these horrific acts, the MSM would literally NEVER stop pointing out the religious angle." Now do you discern the difference between what I said and what you pretended that I meant?
5) Please stop twisting my opinion on a quoted comment, and then attacking that fake opinion.
6) This IS a political topic. I did not make it that way. Interesting line of attack on your part.
7) Again, please don't direct your angst at me just because I quoted part of an article from Politco. They said Trump spoke first, NOT me.
8) After the terrorist attacks in Paris, terrorists were blamed. After this terrorist attack, guns are blamed. Curious.
You come across as angry at me for pointing out the dad's incorrect statement. Weird.
That's not even close to what you said. You clearly attributed the "nothing to do with religion" opinion to the "MSM", not to the dad. Don't pull a Trump and retcon your crazy to sound more palatable after you've been called on it -- it's not going to work here.
You then reference a different case in which you feel the shooter's wife made an incorrect statement. Pot meet kettle.
You claimed that the media would act differently if the shooter weren't Muslim. I posted evidence proving they act the same way when the shooter isn't Muslim. Now you say I'm a hypocrite for demonstrating that your claim is incorrect? The only hypocrite here is the one who is suddenly changing his story.
Your claim that "pointing out the religious angle" was met is correct. But my entire statement was actually the following: "I 100% guarantee that if a fundamentalist christian had committed these horrific acts, the MSM would literally NEVER stop pointing out the religious angle." Now do you discern the difference between what I said and what you pretended that I meant?
I can't parse the qualifier "literally NEVER stop" literally, because the media is pretty definitely going to stop doing whatever it does at some point, and I think even you know that. So no. I have no idea what you mean, because your language is not communicating what you mean.
After the terrorist attacks in Paris, terrorists were blamed. After this terrorist attack, guns are blamed. Curious.
Who's blaming guns? The news coverage, the cops, the politicians, even the President, everybody is talking an awful lot more about ISIS and terrorism right now. Stop attacking fake opinions, dude!
You come across as angry at me for pointing out the dad's incorrect statement. Weird.
That's not even close to what you said. You clearly attributed the "nothing to do with religion" opinion to the "MSM", not to the dad. Don't pull a Trump and retcon your crazy to sound more palatable after you've been called on it -- it's not going to work here.
You then reference a different case in which you feel the shooter's wife made an incorrect statement. Pot meet kettle.
You claimed that the media would act differently if the shooter weren't Muslim. I posted evidence proving they act the same way when the shooter isn't Muslim. Now you say I'm a hypocrite for demonstrating that your claim is incorrect? The only hypocrite here is the one who is suddenly changing his story.
Your claim that "pointing out the religious angle" was met is correct. But my entire statement was actually the following: "I 100% guarantee that if a fundamentalist christian had committed these horrific acts, the MSM would literally NEVER stop pointing out the religious angle." Now do you discern the difference between what I said and what you pretended that I meant?
I can't parse the qualifier "literally NEVER stop" literally, because the media is pretty definitely going to stop doing whatever it does at some point, and I think even you know that. So no. I have no idea what you mean, because your language is not communicating what you mean.
After the terrorist attacks in Paris, terrorists were blamed. After this terrorist attack, guns are blamed. Curious.
Who's blaming guns? The news coverage is talking an awful lot more about ISIS and terrorism right now. Stop attacking fake opinions, dude!
I do not perceive that you are interested in the truth. If you don't want to discuss a political topic, I certainly won't force you to do so. Many politicians have chimed in on this ISIS inspired terrorist attack, including HRC and DJT. Not sure why you are trying to pretend I am some kind of bully forcing this matter into the national debate. I attended my first meeting at 0600 today, and I got up at 0500 to prepare accordingly. That means I knew about this terrorist attack for >7 hours before I posted here. I realize this story is not politically expedient, but this is the reality of the world we live in. I took the red pill about 5 years after 9-11-01, and I have no regrets. Intenionally not joining you in the quagmire of nitpickery. Yar hamu-ka-Llâh.
For starters, the liberty to NOT be forced to pay for illegal immigrants. I voluntarily give of my time and wealth to help peeps in my community, both legal and illegal folks. I GREATLY resent having money taken from my checks for the express purpose of buying votes that will result in even more illegals and thus even less liberty for millions of American citizens. It is immoral for me to take 10% of your increase--against your will--and give it to the church of my liking. Thus it is immoral for you to take my money by force and use it to fund your preferred pet projects.
Establishment politicians--R and D alike--will continue to enrich themselves at the ultimate expense of everyone else. #VisionFTW
Ok.
What else?
What other liberties did Trump promise his supporters besides what you mentioned above?
One last time =D
What other liberties did Trump promise his supporters besides what you mentioned above?
"Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder... uh, horrific massacre of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando..."
--Masterfully done. I genuinely believe he means every word, and that he is deeply saddened by this terrorist attack. Respect increased.
"This was an act of terror, and an act of hate."
--His cautious use of terms is wise at this juncture, and it is reasonable to acquire more facts before 100% linking this with Islamist terrorism.
"...and we will go wherever the facts lead us."
--THAT would be a fundamental transformation. Politicians tend to be fantastic spin artists, so my snarky comment does NOT just apply to BHO.
Speaking about 1st responders and law enforcement, BHO said: "We can never thank them enough."
--VERY well said! His body language, tone, and words have overall been authentic and superior.
Speaking about the nightclub, POTUS said: "It was a place of solidarity and empowerment."
--Fair enough. Adults were there to have a pachanga, which is perfectly fine as long as everyone consents. Superbly said by Obama, IMO.
"The shooter was, apparently, armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle."
--"Assault rifle" is a non-precise term used with the hope that an emotional and/or irrational reaction will be triggered.
"This massacre is, therefore, a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that is the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well."
--Gun control did not work in Paris. And it has not worked in Chicago. Failsauce in Fort Hood Texas. No luck in San Bernardino either. It did not work in a school in Connecticut, or a house of worship in South Carolina, or a movie theater in Colorado, or a nightclub in Orlando. It is almost as if the nutjobs and terrorists don't obey the law! The vast majority of American citizens are convinced that violent criminals will NOT obey new gun control laws. The idea that all of our current gun control laws can somehow be equated "to actively do(ing) nothing" is beyond absurd. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will shift the balance of force towards violent criminals AND towards the popo. Mr. Obama is suggesting we take a step towards a dystopian future in which criminals and cops will be able to operate with even LESS interference by law abiding citizens. More lives will be lost than saved in that dire scenario. No thanks.
For starters, the liberty to NOT be forced to pay for illegal immigrants. I voluntarily give of my time and wealth to help peeps in my community, both legal and illegal folks. I GREATLY resent having money taken from my checks for the express purpose of buying votes that will result in even more illegals and thus even less liberty for millions of American citizens. It is immoral for me to take 10% of your increase--against your will--and give it to the church of my liking. Thus it is immoral for you to take my money by force and use it to fund your preferred pet projects.
Establishment politicians--R and D alike--will continue to enrich themselves at the ultimate expense of everyone else. #VisionFTW
Ok.
What else?
What other liberties did Trump promise his supporters besides what you mentioned above?
One last time =D
What other liberties did Trump promise his supporters besides what you mentioned above?
I simply don't have enough time or energy to chase down every single path that someone points me towards on this site.
The liberty to NOT be bullied any longer by the PC police is noteworthy.
Trump is very difficult to classify. He is a hodgepodge of ideas from left of center, center, right of center, and right.
The following website contains some additional bits o' information:
The liberty to NOT be bullied any longer by the PC police is noteworthy.
What specific policy or law do you believe Trump will implement that will bring about that supposed liberty?
Enlightening. The inference is that you might think yet another policy and/or law is needed. How many 100s of thousands of pages of that already hovers over us?
Mr. Trump just needs to keep exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech. Inspire millions to swing for the fences. Rude, crude, and bad attitude FTW.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
Enlightening. The inference is that you might think yet another policy and/or law is needed. How many 100s of thousands of pages of that already hovers over us?
Mr. Trump just needs to keep exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech. Inspire millions to swing for the fences. Rude, crude, and bad attitude FTW.
So it's an empty and meaningless promise, and nothing will change, but you've fallen for it anyway. Got it.
Enlightening. The inference is that you might think yet another policy and/or law is needed. How many 100s of thousands of pages of that already hovers over us?
Mr. Trump just needs to keep exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech. Inspire millions to swing for the fences. Rude, crude, and bad attitude FTW.
So it's an empty and meaningless promise, and nothing will change, but you've fallen for it anyway. Got it.
MuriKa is a YUGE nation of >320 million human beings. The level of hubris required to believe that MuriKa can be guided to paradise by a handful of elites with force, theft, and corruption is PROFOUND. I will notify Ripley's Believe It Or Not first thing in the AM.
I do admit that I fell for the empty and meaningless promises of modern false priests (politicians and such) prior to taking the red pill 5-6 years after 9/11/01.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
"Assault rifle" is a non-precise term used with the hope that an emotional and/or irrational reaction will be triggered.
Assault rifle is actually pretty precise. The strict definition is:
An individual weapon
Capable of selective fire
Using an intermediate-power cartridge (more than a pistol, less than a standard rifle or battle rifle)
Ammunition supplied by a detachable box magazine
Effective range around 300m
The US Army defines "assault rifle" as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."
MuriKa is a YUGE nation of >320 million human beings. The level of hubris required to believe that MuriKa can be guided to paradise by a handful of elites with force, theft, and corruption is PROFOUND. I will notify Ripley's Believe It Or Not first thing in the AM.
I wonder what the corresponding hubris level for believing that a single corrupt, thieving elite businessman can guide us to paradise is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Trump was the first remaining presidential candidate to speak about the massacre, tweeting Sunday morning about the “really bad shooting in Orlando.”
“Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded,” he wrote.
After the death toll had risen from an estimated to 20 to a confirmed 50 with dozens more injured, Trump tweeted again, offering his condolences and urging the U.S. to “get tough.”
“Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families,” he said. “When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?”
In the first few hours after the attack, he also tweeted
Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism
What a guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
MuriKa is a YUGE nation of >320 million human beings. The level of hubris required to believe that MuriKa can be guided to paradise by a handful of elites with force, theft, and corruption is PROFOUND. I will notify Ripley's Believe It Or Not first thing in the AM.
I wonder what the corresponding hubris level for believing that a single corrupt, thieving elite businessman can guide us to paradise is.
Please quote even one instance of me stating that Trump, or anyone else, can guide MuriKa to paradise. Good luck.
Assault rifle
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
"Mexican" is not a race, therefore discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the Mexican culture is not racism. Lo siento.
Trump is a bigot. Does that make you happier?
Trump is bigoted against those that want to bleed America dry--whether their strat is fundamental transformation, or corruption, or incompetence.
HRC is bigoted against those that prioritize national security and/or fiscal responsibility and/or personal accountability.
I respect the faithful and steadfast manner in which you and your allies, here, have defended truth with zeal. Tip o' the hat. #Truth2016FTW
This makes me want to bang my head against the wall.
Bigotry is not a term used for whenever someone opposes something. Bigotry is not even the term for when you think someone is unfairly prejudiced against a particular view. People use the term “bigotry” when someone is prejudiced against the view of a particular group, which group is specifically based on legally protected criteria like race, religion, national origin, and so on.
If you think a candidate is prejudiced against Keynesians, that is one thing. If you believe in supply-side economics, you certainly don’t have to like that candidate. But it’s entirely another thing when someone is prejudiced against a legally protected status like race, religion, or national origin. Those are things having to do with the fundamental social contract between the government and the people in the US, aka the Constitution. If someone is prejudiced against some sort of policy view, maybe they are just bad at considering opposing views. But if someone is against the Equal Protection of the law, as Trump has shown that he is on occasion after occasion during this election cycle, then they stand against the core identity of the US as a nation.
There are certain ideas that you simply have to adhere to in order to be a public servant in this nation. The idea that people of all races, religions, creeds, and so forth should have the Equal Protection of the law is one of those ideas. After all, if Trump were to be elected President, he would be administered an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which declares precisely that. If you think that establishment politics is taking us to a bad place, you’re perfectly justified in that view, and I’d happen to agree with you. But under no circumstances should we elect someone who opposes the core principles in the Constitution of what makes America America.
MuriKa is a YUGE nation of >320 million human beings. The level of hubris required to believe that MuriKa can be guided to paradise by a handful of elites with force, theft, and corruption is PROFOUND. I will notify Ripley's Believe It Or Not first thing in the AM.
I do admit that I fell for the empty and meaningless promises of modern false priests (politicians and such) prior to taking the red pill 5-6 years after 9/11/01.
The question was not who will lead us to paradise. The question you were asked was, "Which liberty did Trump promise to give y'all?" You came up with one example - the "liberty" to not pay for illegal immigrants. Hard-pressed to think up a second, you threw out "The liberty to NOT be bullied any longer by the PC police", but could not articulate any actual change that Trump will make to secure that liberty for you. And yet, somehow, you feel this empty promise is particularly "noteworthy" among the changes you hope to see Trump bring.
MuriKa is a YUGE nation of >320 million human beings. The level of hubris required to believe that MuriKa can be guided to paradise by a handful of elites with force, theft, and corruption is PROFOUND. I will notify Ripley's Believe It Or Not first thing in the AM.
I wonder what the corresponding hubris level for believing that a single corrupt, thieving elite businessman can guide us to paradise is.
Please quote even one instance of me stating that Trump, or anyone else, can guide MuriKa to paradise. Good luck.
Okay then, why don't you quote one of us saying that Clinton or Sanders or another of the established politicians will 'guide MuriKa to paradise?' Nobody here said anything remotely like that until you fabricated the claim just so you can refute it. You however, have implied that Trump will indeed lead us to paradise or whatnot, by asserting that establishment politicians can't. Why bother fabricating such a ridiculous argument in the first place? If you don't believe anyone can lead us to paradise, and we don't believe anyone can lead us to paradise, then how is discussing it relevant?
The definition has changed. Nice political tactic. MSM says it a million times, the matrix alters the definition, and now humanity can be saved.
Can you provide any evidence that shows the government changed the definition of the term "Assault Rifle" throughout dozens of online and hard copy dictionaries over the course of the past few days (or even the past few years) just so they could make the words mean what they want them to? Seriously man, do you actually believe any of this stuff, or are you just arguing with us because we don't like your (anti) hero Trump?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
He'll win.
It's unfortunate but unavoidable. When was the last time we followed one Democrat president with another? Roosevelt, wasn't it?
And of course, he's just the right kind of stupid for most Americans.
Life will be a terrible agony under his leadership. All non-essential (non-military) spending will be cut. He's a blowhard, so I expect once we all get around to realizing that he'll be impeached for incompetence. At least, I hope so.
All non-essential (non-military) spending will be cut.
Technically Military spending falls under discretionary spending. As much as he might like to he can't cut mandatory spending without congress backing him. The president does "make" the budget but its in quotes because its entirely up to congress to approve. The real issues will in come in damage to foreign relations and potential conflicts that he may incite or fail to resolve peacefully. As well as rallying more terrorists with his hate speech. I have doubts that a Trump presidency will have much domestic impact, positive or negative, long term simply because no matter what he does his approval rating will be in the toilet. He has no chance of making good on any of his campaign promises mostly because many of them were outside the power of the office he is running for to begin with. I do hope that if he does make it to office that the gulibles will wise up by 2020 so we can get a real republican candidate.
He'll win.
It's unfortunate but unavoidable. When was the last time we followed one Democrat president with another? Roosevelt, wasn't it?
Actually, the electoral math looks very bad for Trump. I'd pay more attention to that than to a "trend" of six data points over seventy years. (And you're overlooking LBJ anyway.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) No need to take the Lord's name in vain. Also, my first 2 sentences focused on all that are suffering due to this terrorist attack.
2) You come across as angry at me for pointing out the dad's incorrect statement. Weird.
3) You then reference a different case in which you feel the shooter's wife made an incorrect statement. Pot meet kettle.
4) Your claim that "pointing out the religious angle" was met is correct. But my entire statement was actually the following: "I 100% guarantee that if a fundamentalist christian had committed these horrific acts, the MSM would literally NEVER stop pointing out the religious angle." Now do you discern the difference between what I said and what you pretended that I meant?
5) Please stop twisting my opinion on a quoted comment, and then attacking that fake opinion.
6) This IS a political topic. I did not make it that way. Interesting line of attack on your part.
7) Again, please don't direct your angst at me just because I quoted part of an article from Politco. They said Trump spoke first, NOT me.
8) After the terrorist attacks in Paris, terrorists were blamed. After this terrorist attack, guns are blamed. Curious.
So you acknowledge that the rest of your post was cynically turning it into political ammunition?
That's not even close to what you said. You clearly attributed the "nothing to do with religion" opinion to the "MSM", not to the dad. Don't pull a Trump and retcon your crazy to sound more palatable after you've been called on it -- it's not going to work here.
You claimed that the media would act differently if the shooter weren't Muslim. I posted evidence proving they act the same way when the shooter isn't Muslim. Now you say I'm a hypocrite for demonstrating that your claim is incorrect? The only hypocrite here is the one who is suddenly changing his story.
I can't parse the qualifier "literally NEVER stop" literally, because the media is pretty definitely going to stop doing whatever it does at some point, and I think even you know that. So no. I have no idea what you mean, because your language is not communicating what you mean.
You chose to bring this news into a political thread to somehow win some points for Trump. You chose.
So, what, you just accidentally slipped and quoted that article? Take some freaking responsibility.
Who's blaming guns? The news coverage, the cops, the politicians, even the President, everybody is talking an awful lot more about ISIS and terrorism right now. Stop attacking fake opinions, dude!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
#PrayForOrlando
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
One last time =D
What other liberties did Trump promise his supporters besides what you mentioned above?
"Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder... uh, horrific massacre of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando..."
--Masterfully done. I genuinely believe he means every word, and that he is deeply saddened by this terrorist attack. Respect increased.
"This was an act of terror, and an act of hate."
--His cautious use of terms is wise at this juncture, and it is reasonable to acquire more facts before 100% linking this with Islamist terrorism.
"...and we will go wherever the facts lead us."
--THAT would be a fundamental transformation. Politicians tend to be fantastic spin artists, so my snarky comment does NOT just apply to BHO.
Speaking about 1st responders and law enforcement, BHO said: "We can never thank them enough."
--VERY well said! His body language, tone, and words have overall been authentic and superior.
Speaking about the nightclub, POTUS said: "It was a place of solidarity and empowerment."
--Fair enough. Adults were there to have a pachanga, which is perfectly fine as long as everyone consents. Superbly said by Obama, IMO.
"The shooter was, apparently, armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle."
--"Assault rifle" is a non-precise term used with the hope that an emotional and/or irrational reaction will be triggered.
"This massacre is, therefore, a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that is the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well."
--Gun control did not work in Paris. And it has not worked in Chicago. Failsauce in Fort Hood Texas. No luck in San Bernardino either. It did not work in a school in Connecticut, or a house of worship in South Carolina, or a movie theater in Colorado, or a nightclub in Orlando. It is almost as if the nutjobs and terrorists don't obey the law! The vast majority of American citizens are convinced that violent criminals will NOT obey new gun control laws. The idea that all of our current gun control laws can somehow be equated "to actively do(ing) nothing" is beyond absurd. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will shift the balance of force towards violent criminals AND towards the popo. Mr. Obama is suggesting we take a step towards a dystopian future in which criminals and cops will be able to operate with even LESS interference by law abiding citizens. More lives will be lost than saved in that dire scenario. No thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiXjbvgF0ps
Overall a good statement by POTUS, but that one bit of illogic pushed him into the B+ range.
I thought he was supposed to resign in disgrace if he didn't say the magic words?
I simply don't have enough time or energy to chase down every single path that someone points me towards on this site.
The liberty to NOT be bullied any longer by the PC police is noteworthy.
Trump is very difficult to classify. He is a hodgepodge of ideas from left of center, center, right of center, and right.
The following website contains some additional bits o' information:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
I quoted Trump. That comment was a political poke by Trump against the POTUS. Pretty basic stuff. Are you new to politics?
What specific policy or law do you believe Trump will implement that will bring about that supposed liberty?
So do you disagree with Trump?
Enlightening. The inference is that you might think yet another policy and/or law is needed. How many 100s of thousands of pages of that already hovers over us?
Mr. Trump just needs to keep exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech. Inspire millions to swing for the fences. Rude, crude, and bad attitude FTW.
So it's an empty and meaningless promise, and nothing will change, but you've fallen for it anyway. Got it.
MuriKa is a YUGE nation of >320 million human beings. The level of hubris required to believe that MuriKa can be guided to paradise by a handful of elites with force, theft, and corruption is PROFOUND. I will notify Ripley's Believe It Or Not first thing in the AM.
I do admit that I fell for the empty and meaningless promises of modern false priests (politicians and such) prior to taking the red pill 5-6 years after 9/11/01.
Art is life itself.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I wonder what the corresponding hubris level for believing that a single corrupt, thieving elite businessman can guide us to paradise is.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Assault rifle
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle
The definition has changed. Nice political tactic. MSM says it a million times, the matrix alters the definition, and now humanity can be saved.
The Orlando Trigger
Posted June 13th, 2016 @ 8:27am in #Trump Clinton ISIS Orlando
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145856730936/the-orlando-trigger
This makes me want to bang my head against the wall.
Bigotry is not a term used for whenever someone opposes something. Bigotry is not even the term for when you think someone is unfairly prejudiced against a particular view. People use the term “bigotry” when someone is prejudiced against the view of a particular group, which group is specifically based on legally protected criteria like race, religion, national origin, and so on.
If you think a candidate is prejudiced against Keynesians, that is one thing. If you believe in supply-side economics, you certainly don’t have to like that candidate. But it’s entirely another thing when someone is prejudiced against a legally protected status like race, religion, or national origin. Those are things having to do with the fundamental social contract between the government and the people in the US, aka the Constitution. If someone is prejudiced against some sort of policy view, maybe they are just bad at considering opposing views. But if someone is against the Equal Protection of the law, as Trump has shown that he is on occasion after occasion during this election cycle, then they stand against the core identity of the US as a nation.
There are certain ideas that you simply have to adhere to in order to be a public servant in this nation. The idea that people of all races, religions, creeds, and so forth should have the Equal Protection of the law is one of those ideas. After all, if Trump were to be elected President, he would be administered an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which declares precisely that. If you think that establishment politics is taking us to a bad place, you’re perfectly justified in that view, and I’d happen to agree with you. But under no circumstances should we elect someone who opposes the core principles in the Constitution of what makes America America.
The question was not who will lead us to paradise. The question you were asked was, "Which liberty did Trump promise to give y'all?" You came up with one example - the "liberty" to not pay for illegal immigrants. Hard-pressed to think up a second, you threw out "The liberty to NOT be bullied any longer by the PC police", but could not articulate any actual change that Trump will make to secure that liberty for you. And yet, somehow, you feel this empty promise is particularly "noteworthy" among the changes you hope to see Trump bring.
Yes. You definitely have trouble connecting with reality.
Okay then, why don't you quote one of us saying that Clinton or Sanders or another of the established politicians will 'guide MuriKa to paradise?' Nobody here said anything remotely like that until you fabricated the claim just so you can refute it. You however, have implied that Trump will indeed lead us to paradise or whatnot, by asserting that establishment politicians can't. Why bother fabricating such a ridiculous argument in the first place? If you don't believe anyone can lead us to paradise, and we don't believe anyone can lead us to paradise, then how is discussing it relevant?
Can you provide any evidence that shows the government changed the definition of the term "Assault Rifle" throughout dozens of online and hard copy dictionaries over the course of the past few days (or even the past few years) just so they could make the words mean what they want them to? Seriously man, do you actually believe any of this stuff, or are you just arguing with us because we don't like your (anti) hero Trump?
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
It's unfortunate but unavoidable. When was the last time we followed one Democrat president with another? Roosevelt, wasn't it?
And of course, he's just the right kind of stupid for most Americans.
Life will be a terrible agony under his leadership. All non-essential (non-military) spending will be cut. He's a blowhard, so I expect once we all get around to realizing that he'll be impeached for incompetence. At least, I hope so.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.