Jump to content

ndawg

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ndawg

  1. 14 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

    People are angry, but her suggestion to disrupt them out and about is a bit misguided. (she's not the only one suggesting this though)

    I understand why she's doing it, but I don't know/think it's the right tactic. 

    I'll take the other stance. The GOP is not pushing back against Maxine Waters because they believe they are being treated unfairly (although that's what they want their base to think). They're pushing back because she's standing in their way of normalizing their behavior.

    I think the Democratic party should stand up and say, "you're damned right we are using authoritarian tactics against you. You cannot be reasoned with and you cannot be bothered to hold yourself to any moral standard whatsoever. There's no stopping authoritarians except by force." The right will interpret this as fascism, and they'll portray the left as hypocrites. But guess what? Hitler had to be forcibly removed from power by an invading army. That's fundamentally an authoritarian act. What's the saying about diamonds? Only diamonds are strong enough to cut diamonds?

    It's natural to be scared such posturing could trigger an escalation, and that eventually enough escalation could lead to civil war. But we're losing the peace, so war may be inevitable whether we like it or not. The inevitability of conflict has got nothing to do with the response of the Democrats, it has everything to do with the GOP. They're the ones setting fire to this country.

    The consequences of the GOP continuing its present course must either be a fight, or a capitulation. Compromise should be off the table. Look at Trump trotting out an irrelevant Obama era ruling as justification for detaining children, and then claiming the Democrats must compromise on building the wall in order to resolve the issue. You can't compromise with the GOP today, because they've weaponized compromise.

    • Like 3
  2. 20 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    So explain to me, because I’m an ignorant dummy, how refusal to serve someone based on their political philosophy and legal actions to promote their philosophy is different than refusing service based on anything else? The answer might simply be that political status/identity/affiliation is not a legally protected class and you can theoretically have “Red restaurants only” or “Blue restaurants only” if you wanted (though who would as all money is green :) )

    Do you know the saying, when someone tells you who the are, believe 'em? Well, in this case, I am forced to buy in to your self assessment. You are indeed an ignorant dummy.

    SHS attacks our freedom and our democracy every time she stands up in front of her podium and ejaculates lie after lie. She's the principal apologist of our liar-in-chief, and an accomplished liar in her own right. That's why she has garnered such scorn, not because of her "political philosophy."

    • Like 3
  3. How much can we really know about what makes Hillary Clinton tick? The right has managed to sustain a routine spewing of circumstantial evidence about her for the better part of three decades. The left has defended her. Meanwhile, she's obviously built an impenetrable public image. I don't think think either side really knows her beyond conjecture.

  4. Just now, bolverk said:

    For anyone who ever had any concerns about executive overreach, Trump should be a real nightmare.

    They're too drunk on libcuck tears to think about the future like that.

  5. 11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    I love this take.  It means you’ve learned nothing.  You still think calling people that voted for Trump racist and sexist is the answer.  Good luck.  

    Are you suggesting there was some life lesson I was supposed to take away from the results of the election? Okay, let me reflect on what you're saying...

    Okay, done. Got it... I get what you're saying. You're saying that the single most influential voting block in the electorate is petty enough to vote to re-elect the worst president in US history -- who has consistently stoked the flames of bigotry at every opportunity, mind you -- if they are led to believe that liberals by and large still think they are bigots (just like last time). And you're taunting me as if they'll vote elect him again if I don't learn to treat them with more respect.

    Do you see how that makes you come across as a moron?

  6. 4 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

    The sad thing is Democrats don’t have a simple bold unifying message to make people want to change what they already have. If any of them are running on impeaching Trump, it will only make the Reps come out and vote against them. 

    I love this take. The only thing the GOP needed to win the WH and Congress was appealing to xenophobia and demonizing Hillary. Apparently the Democrats are the only party expected to actually run a campaign in order to win.

  7. 2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

    A couple quick things. 

    1) I’m not a “Trumplican”.  I don’t support everything he or his party do. Not even close to it. 

    2) “Trumplican” might be even worse than “libtard”. When you use it, it looks juvenile and signals a lack of intelligence. You’d do best to polish up your language if you want to be taken seriously. Maybe not on the internet, but in the real world.

    Be careful out there, Trump is watching you everywhere. 

    While you're out there posturing as a highly intelligent grown up, all the actual highly intelligent grown ups are noticing that Trump is dismantling the checks and balances that hold our Republic together.

    So, there's that.

  8. 15 minutes ago, TornACL said:

    Nice to see Michael Moore, another famed narcissist, jumping into the fray in an attempt to also make his about him. 

    Not going to deny he's a narcissist (may well be, dunno), but how exactly is he making this about him? He's promoting a movie he's going to make. That's kinda his schtick...

  9. Good points, Brisket, and the ability of the far right to suddenly swing far left might help explain why the Republicans are scared of losing Trump's base. The threat of them dislodging themselves from the (R) ticket is real.

  10. 1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

    Seems to be a lot of early onset dementia setting in around here. You guys just happened to tune out 4Q2016. 

     

    That video featured Zephram Motherfucking Cochran. First human to break the warp barrier. So, I think it hurt your argument.

  11. 1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

    You give me the awful impression of someone who has a tenuous grasp of the opioid epidemic. Heroin is cheaper and is what most addicts turn to once their prescriptions run their course or they are running low on money. 

    So? They're getting hooked on pharmaceuticals. Take away the prescription drug abuse and the market for heroin and fentanyl takes a *huge* hit.

  12. 12 minutes ago, slorch said:

    That's all kinds of wrong.

    The discrimination is related to sexual preference, not gender.

    By your description, it would be consistent as long the seller also refuses the business of the bull dyke who likes the womynz.

    That's not to say i support the discrimination, but the logic is all fucked up.

    This reply is one of those Dunning Kruger case studies that proudly espouses some retarded conclusion that anyone with an ounce of brains realizes is complete horse shit.

  13. 3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    This shit is chilling.

    The most chilling quote from that scene is the line, "If I had *my* way, they'd all be round up and shot."

    Because he's implying that he doesn't have the power to do so... that the law is in his way. In that one moment, he gets to pass himself off as someone who isn't an authoritarian, and he gets to pretend he's bound by the rule of law. But all the while he's inciting the audience to act as a mob on his behalf. He's inviting them to do what he seems like he wishes he could. It's creepy.

  14. 5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    I understand it just fine, I grew in a blue household. Doesn’t mean I have to support it, or others that do. 

    Of course you don't have to support it. I didn't suggest otherwise. But you do not have the understanding you claim to have, regardless of the political affiliation of your family members. Most people have a very shallow understanding of, well, just about anything. I wouldn't be as confident in my understanding of the other side of the political spectrum if I were you.

  15. 14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    This is true. The other half is made up of another really special type of person. The type of person who can hear a heartbeat of a child growing inside them, but decide to 86 it as it doesn’t jive with their retirement plans. Or maybe they were just off fucking randoms at the bar, but decided the condom wasn’t worth the .50.  Or I just don’t feel like taking care of my responsibilities YOLO!!!  No matter the excuse, it’s damn well justified, in their minds.

    Wat. You stared off trying to present yourself as understanding the leftist point of view, but then indulged an incredibly slanted characterization of a single issue which simply revealed that you _don't_ actually understand that point of view.

  16. 9 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

    a couple of presumptions   (1) they are dying for the faith alone or perhaps not (2) definition of terrorism is arbitrary. So this question does not have a definitive answer. 

    And, it's not supposed to, really. The objective of the question is to challenge the evangelical perception of Muslims, particularly the belief that acts of terrorism comprise a significant majority of faith-motivated deaths among Muslims. Very few evangelicals I've met have the capacity to acknowledge what they have in common with many of other faiths. The world would be a whole lot safer if they did.

×
×
  • Create New...