If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
So NOW Hillary regrets her shitty decision of going back to the campaign trail instead of resting. This is a reoccurring theme with the Clintons. Yeah, 4 years of regrettable mistakes.
If Catholic dogma claims "this is not holy water", it is insulting to state it?
No, it's not. But that's not what he did. Saying "My Church, and therefore I, don't consider it Holy Water," is one thing. Perhaps I am overly sensitive as I just returned from a trip to Delhi where I was privileged to visit the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib. I don't believe the pool there had magical powers any more than I believe in transubstantiation, but the Sikh worshipers there have as much right to call it Holy Water as any Catholic, dogma or no.
Review his statement. As I said, maybe I'm overly sensitive this week, but I'm baffled you can't recognise the insult and derision in his statement.
Originally Posted by Chongo
No validly ordained Priest, no Holy Water. They can call it holy water, but it ain't, just like when they have a "communion service". No validly ordained Priest, no transubstantiation.
So NOW Hillary regrets her shitty decision of going back to the campaign trail instead of resting. This is a reoccurring theme with the Clintons. Yeah, 4 years of regrettable mistakes.
This issue is now beyond stupid. If she had rested you guys would have been all over her being sick. There was nothing she could have done that would have pacified you.
The clock is ticking on your making sure she doesn't get elected, why not stick to actual stuff that is actually, indisputably a thing for now, and if this health thing becomes a real indisputable thing you can go in for the kill?
In the meantime, these attempts look like desperate grasps at fluff to those that aren't firmly in your camp and are looking for confirmation bias.
Again, you have YEARS of stuff to work with. You don't need the fluff.
The bottom line to all Illary's " health issues" is it reinforces her reputation as a secretive liar.
The secret Service detail broke protocol in taking her to Chelsea's instead the ER.
They ditched the "protective pool" who's job is to keep on top of these specific type of events.
The kept the press blacked out for ninety minutes. At first the said it was heat related until the video of her passing out cold was posted online. Then they said its pneumonia. If it's pneumonia, why was she allowed to get near that little girl let alone Chelsea's baby?
BTW, what dropped out of her pantsuit? I know, it's a piece of!
It's amusing watching you pontificate on these issues. It's like a primary student of middling intelligence discus particle physics. He may know some of the words, but clearly lacks fundamental understanding.
No one projects like you, IMAX. I know 50x more about religion, and specifically Christian dogma/doctrine, than you know about anything. But that pales in comparison to this:
Originally Posted by Paco500
It's quite telling that in your mind calling me a woman is an insult. Your need to demonstrate your latent misogyny outweighed your desire to object to being labelled a fantasist. Interesting.
Oh wow! Misogyny!!Dun, dun, dun! The clear indicator that your opponent is out of their depth? They try to spark outrage while diverting from the topic. Nerve hit, the Captain gains another point. You're far more "sandy" than anyone could be. (Women who were born female aren't the only ones who can have periods, or have you never heard of trans men? How transphobic of you.)
No, this is well beyond PMS. If you're this backed-up, maybe you should lay off the dairy and gluten for a while?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If Catholic dogma claims "this is not holy water", it is insulting to state it?
He's posting while Triggered and swinging wild. He's so clenched-up right now, I doubt he could squeeze out a BB.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No one projects like you, IMAX. I know 50x more about religion, and specifically Christian dogma/doctrine, than you know about anything. But that pales in comparison to this:
Again, pretending you have a Ph.D. and falsely claiming to have been a deacon in the Coptic Church does not make you an expert on anything. It makes you a very, very, transparent liar.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Trump
Oh wow! Misogyny!!Dun, dun, dun! The clear indicator that your opponent is out of their depth? They try to spark outrage while diverting from the topic. Nerve hit, the Captain gains another point. You're far more "sandy" than anyone could be. (Women who were born female aren't the only ones who can have periods, or have you never heard of trans men? How transphobic of you.)
No, this is well beyond PMS. If you're this backed-up, maybe you should lay off the dairy and gluten for a while?
Yep, Hillary is a bigot and I'm the Misogynist. Good call.
Again, pretending you have a Ph.D. and falsely claiming to have been a deacon in the Coptic Church does not make you an expert on anything. It makes you a very, very, transparent liar.
Yeah, sure thing, kiddo.
Yep, Hillary is a bigot and I'm the Misogynist. Good call.
Just like you're a transphobe?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The how leads to the what, since if he used another method he would end up with different positions. A distinction without a difference. I find the positions equally as revolting as the the "how", but the "how" comes first so in my mind it's the source of the problems. I don't believe for a second they are genuine positions, and the method used to choose them to be even less genuine.
No. You're obfuscating the problem with his positions which are just extreme republican orthodoxy. It doesn't matter if he flipped a coin to use them, because the problem is the positions, not the method used.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
A principle that I support that was horribly misguided and led to the opposite of what I was hoping for.
That's not entirely what I meant. Yes, a good deal of his support was the misguided notion that he is anti-establishment, but there were other principles at play, such as white nationalism, racial resentment, xenophobia, etc.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
The sky would not fall under a Trump presidency.
Well, I think we found our problem. That's a bit of minority position among those against Trump.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I am not avoiding anything Dakar. My views do not have to be your views for them to be valid and/or true, whether they concern Trump or not. "Lazy and/or cowardly"? **** off. The only lazy and/or cowardly stances in this thread are you and Lam completely dismissing my opinion, instead of discussing, for what I can only assume at this point is a fear that I might actually make a valid point. Unless, that is, either of you would like to take me up on my offer to discuss my view further.
That's some B-tier grandstanding. We called you out for your criticism of Trump being a critique of his occupation rather than his positions and you've responded with several posts focusing on our critique of your critique – posts where you were quite free to elaborate your other views of Trump.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
IThe only lazy and/or cowardly stances in this thread are you and Lam completely dismissing my opinion, instead of discussing, for what I can only assume at this point is a fear that I might actually make a valid point.
A valid point about what? You're the one that's been putting on a dance instead of just addressing the criticism by, you know, continuing discussing his faults. Instead you've repeatedly reminded us we're in the wrong thread for it – but made no move to address the issue in the correct thread.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
This is on top of me explicitly not supporting Trump. I will ask you again, point blank, a question neither you or Lam has been able to answer. Why is it so important that I criticize Trump to your standards when I've already committed my vote elsewhere?
Answered a long time ago:
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
…snow-I is right for the wrong reason. By dismissing the opponent the reality tv star, he glosses over the real problem which is the opponent the candidate. I agree that I too would be unlikely to elect a reality tv star, however I don't think the title precludes someone from being qualified.
I also said that above.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
IYou can be both - they are not mutually exclusive.
True, however I'm referring to his extreme views, rather than his rise to the nomination. After all, the second place candidate, Ted Cruz, is pretty far right as well.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I've disavowed him, yet you still call my viewpoints "lazy and/or cowardly". I'm sure as shit not voting for Hillary, who in my mind is an embodiment of everything the DNC claims to be fighting against. I don't believe there is any room for discussion with you - either with you or against you. Ironically, this folly of a paradigm is extremely Trump-esque and exactly the sort of illogical tripe that my position highlights and criticizes.
Of course, no where did I expect you to vote for Hillary. I think Laminar and I were also pointing out that your critique of Hillary (or at least those you agreed with) have more substance than dismissing someone outright for their occupation.
Laminar correct me if I'm wrong here, but the gist I'm getting is snow-I is right for the wrong reason. By dismissing the opponent the reality tv star, he glosses over the real problem which is the opponent the candidate. I agree that I too would be unlikely to elect a reality tv star, however I don't think the title precludes someone from being qualified.
The title isn't what disqualifies him, it's the application of the behavior to politics. Barring the last few weeks, he hasn't stopped being a reality TV star to assume the mantle of a job requiring different talents.
Throughout the campaign, the skills with which he has proven most deft are creating drama and pandering to our more base natures. The criticism is what that says about his suitability to be President.
Most of his policies are horrid, but exist as an outgrowth of him ably demonstrating the above talents. Though the policy is disturbing, I can't help but be more disturbed by the example with which he leads.
The title isn't what disqualifies him, it's the application of the behavior to politics. Barring the last few weeks, he hasn't stopped being a reality TV star to assume the mantle of a job requiring different talents.
That's an apt way of putting it. I think he's the candidate that has the most media time in history — and people know who he is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
My point exactly. His latest occupation doesn't influence his politics. This is who he is. A schmoozing, pandering, ill informed, opinionated troll.
The fact that he is a reality TV star, though, says something about his personality, about his need for attention. All politicians have it to some degree or another, but usually it manifests itself differently. One gem during the DNC was this bit on Trump in Biden's speech:
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
The fact that he is a reality TV star, though, says something about his personality, about his need for attention. All politicians have it to some degree or another, but usually it manifests itself differently. One gem during the DNC was this bit on Trump in Biden's speech:
I can't come up with term for it. He's like a star ****er who wants to be the star.
No. You're obfuscating the problem with his positions which are just extreme republican orthodoxy. It doesn't matter if he flipped a coin to use them, because the problem is the positions, not the method used.
Trump is not republican orthodoxy. I'm sorry but quite simply...no.
The methodology he used to choose the positions is exactly my problem with him because I don't believe he believes the shit he's shoveling - he's saying the shit he thinks the nation wants to hear. I can appreciate that you disagree with my opinion, but it makes it no less valid or logical than yours.
That's not entirely what I meant. Yes, a good deal of his support was the misguided notion that he is anti-establishment, but there were other principles at play, such as white nationalism, racial resentment, xenophobia, etc.
You're kidding yourself if you believe that "white nationalism, racial resentment, & xenophobia" make up any significant portion of the voting base. Sure you can show me idiots on youtube, anyone can do that. You're projecting your own distastes onto a candidate to further your "pat yourself on the back" syndrome.
Well, I think we found our problem. That's a bit of minority position among those against Trump.
So that makes me a protected class then right? I thought you were all about minority positions.
That's some B-tier grandstanding. We called you out for your criticism of Trump being a critique of his occupation rather than his positions and you've responded with several posts focusing on our critique of your critique – posts where you were quite free to elaborate your other views of Trump.
I don't have other views on Trump. Those are my views on Trump. I'm sorry I'm not saying what you want to hear.
A valid point about what? You're the one that's been putting on a dance instead of just addressing the criticism by, you know, continuing discussing his faults. Instead you've repeatedly reminded us we're in the wrong thread for it – but made no move to address the issue in the correct thread.
A dance? You are everything you claim to hate, and you're too obtuse to recognize it. I discussed his faults as I see them, as I stated multiple times. Why you're having so much trouble with that is beyond me - I can only assume it's some kind of moral superiority complex that prevents you from having a civil conversation with someone that has a different perspective than you do.
I'd rather be dancing than watching the spit fall out of my mouth at the mere mention of the word republican. Dakar just when I thought you might be capable of an unbiased conversation, there you go proving me wrong all over again. I should learn better than to put my faith in you, but I guess we're both destined to make the same mistakes over and over.
Answered a long time ago:
I also said that above.
No, you answered what was important to you. I want to know why it's important that I fall in line with your views.
Also, that sentence is a mess:
"...he glosses over the real problem which is the opponent the candidate." Uhh....what?
True, however I'm referring to his extreme views, rather than his rise to the nomination. After all, the second place candidate, Ted Cruz, is pretty far right as well.
Ted Cruz is an idiot and a blight on the republican party.
Of course, no where did I expect you to vote for Hillary. I think Laminar and I were also pointing out that your critique of Hillary (or at least those you agreed with) have more substance than dismissing someone outright for their occupation.
Hillary has a political track record. Trump does not. The only thing you can discuss when it comes to Trump is what crazy sensational soundbyte you saw a CBS reporter drooling over and how that would translate to a Trump presidency. Hmm, what does that remind me of? Teen mom 13. "what's that crazy kid going to do now!" I don't often discuss statements I don't take seriously, yet you seem to be plenty entertained this election cycle to the point that you criticize me for not engaging in the dumbassery. You're an idiot if you believe anything that man says (or HRC for that matter).
The fact that he is a reality TV star, though, says something about his personality, about his need for attention. All politicians have it to some degree or another, but usually it manifests itself differently. One gem during the DNC was this bit on Trump in Biden's speech:
Empathy, eh? Yet, time and again, it's Hillary that's known for the cruelty shown towards the people who work for her.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The sort of people who sell stories about her to conservative rags were probably not big fans in the first place and likely made that clear. Who among us is nice to people that hate us when no-one else is looking and why should we be?
I bet she still pays them though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I love how CTP drops these sort of anecdotal reports on us and expects us to believe that they are completely fair and accurate because they support his existing perspective.
None of us know if she is a tyrant to work with. None of us know what trump is like to work with either. There could be 1000 reasons and factors contributing to embellishment or hyperbole, and damning things we know nothing about too. This is like fans trying to be sports psychologists based on what sort of emotion and behaviour we see from the players in-game.
Why can't we stick to the realm of what is actually known? There is plenty of damning material that is not getting nearly the same attention as the fluffy stuff.
I love how CTP drops these sort of anecdotal reports on us and expects us to believe that they are completely fair and accurate because they support his existing perspective.
Not as much as I love to hear you cry about it, love.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So who believes Hillary is dead, and either there is a double pretending to be her or somesuch. Also have you heard the one where her campaign is using some sort of greenscreen to add more people to the scene or some other crap?
So who believes Hillary is dead, and either there is a double pretending to be her or somesuch. Also have you heard the one where her campaign is using some sort of greenscreen to add more people to the scene or some other crap?
So who believes Hillary is dead, and either there is a double pretending to be her or somesuch. Also have you heard the one where her campaign is using some sort of greenscreen to add more people to the scene or some other crap?
Does Revelation say it Has to be a man?
Revelation 13:3
3 One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth followed the beast with wonder.
She STILL has medical issues. After all, you just don't stroke out/seizure if you're "OK".
You don't have to have half your staff dragging you into a van while the rest block the cameras if you're "OK".
Perhaps its just more of Hillary's lies?
Do you think she's being honest?
Wanna buy a bridge?
health issues" is it reinforces her reputation as a secretive liar. 
The clear indicator that your opponent is out of their depth? They try to spark outrage while diverting from the topic. Nerve hit, the Captain gains another point. You're far more "sandy" than anyone could be. (Women who were born female aren't the only ones who can have periods, or have you never heard of trans men? How transphobic of you.) 
Joe
Top