Discussion in 'Unrelated Discussion' started by stuart98, November 11, 2015.
There are two reasons someone wants to defend hate speech. The liberal irrational leap, that they love them some hate speech and want to be able to be racist/sexist/islamaphobic/transphobic/antisemantic/ect. Then, there's the **** where someone supports "healthcare" and goes to jail because a stance on heathcare is "racist" (or linked to racism in the furthest leap a grasshopper like Gorbles or Tatsu can make).
I do not want anyone who has an unbiased stance, against immigration, to go to prison because the government generously abuses a law to imprison essentially anyone. A stance against immigration isn't racist, it can be an economic stance. The bathroom laws, can be a safety stance, albeit that's a stupid stance, but the people aren't always trying to be spiteful over it, some are women who are brainwashed into fearing sexual assault, and it's not fair to imprison them over their fear of sexual assault, instead of address it. That's victim-jailing, an advanced form of victim-blaming.
It's not opposition of gay marriage. That is something supported. It's in opposition to citizen prosecution for political stance. We already have laws where public businesses cannot discriminate, THAT's not free speech, that's a legal violation.
If someone's religious stance is openly anti-gay, then yes, they're an idiot because everyone does anti-christian ****, even christians, who the hell lives their life never having sex outside of marriage or have only 1 spouse their entire life? Like generously, 28% at most.
Can that be their stance anyway? As long as they're aware that their liberty of speech, lasts until it affects someone else, such as refusal of service (they serve divorcees anyway), a moltov (attempted murder, doesn't matter race/religion/ect), or other **** the Westboro has so many people willing to oppose them over.
She made the political climate inhospitable for everyone, both during the election, and afterwards now that she gave the presidency to Trump for 4+ years. As such, I-... no, EVERYONE is owed 4 years of saltiness, to accommodate their grief...
Hey, here's a joke in poor taste for ya. Did you know, wealth is apparently the only handicap when pouring a good pint, NOT gender? I already knew that, just wondering if you did. By the way, you can only guess who made this gem...
well... hold on know...
you say grasshopper like it's a thing we do .... but then you jump from liking healthcare to that being a jail-worthy felony!? and don't back your claim???
now I realize the reason you don't need to is because : that's nuts, trump tweets wish they were that crazy and far fetched.
what the hell kind of left/lib/dem DOESN'T support healthcare? (that's despite the dems no longer being in charge ..at all!)
and AGAIN luckily for ALL of us... we're not living in countries were we're thrown in jail over differentiating opinions. that's totalitarianism. THAT'S the thing the left/lib/dem are/were trying to prevent Trump from forming.
back to the topic at hand : the ridiculous claim : so aside from all those elements being separately far fetched .... they're also far fetched TOGETHER and I feel I have to call you out on that too because if I leave anything out you might feel like you've actually said something of mental sense in that short sentence... which you haven't... it was utter gibberish and a conglomerate of lies intricately woven together for the sole purpose of defeating being set straight out of sheer volume of untruths (not that I'm going to let that slow me down) :
It doesn't make quite a lot of sence for you to argue that "support of healthcare" be the issue reps are metaphorically being sent to jail over when the prime thing you had to scold the dems over for pages 1-80 of this thread was unwanted healthcare.
That aside another logical falacy in this is if reps want health care (and dems do too, that ain't up for debate) then you both want the same thing. and you do that's only the truth. majoritarily people want health care. and unanimously sensible/inteligent people want health care.
so that means you can't single out half of all people and say "those bastards jail people who support healthcare"
I know that's maybe not what you were trying to say but in trying to lie your way into claiming falsehoods that's what you ended up saying.
maybe you'll be more carefull now with your claims
This is so easy to refute that is boring.
You basically said 2 things:
- opposing gay marriage because you hate gay people is valid
- people who disagree with you do so because of their hate unless they prove otherwise
that's the most roundabout way I've ever heard of saying "I regret my vote but I'm so ashamed to admit it that I hid that regret deep down".
So here's what I understand from this : here on out everything that Trump does that makes things worse you'll have to dig into your memory dig up Hillary and paint her into something even more villainous to retain the "it was STILL worth it" effect... am I correct?
Do you realize that by Trump's 22nd year of office (by then called monarchy) with the third world war past (all theoretical, roll with me here) and now you'll have acid rain and radioactive soil ..... you'll have to dig up hillary in your memory and then.... well man .. things are gonna get creative!
She was actually a tentacle alien that ate children's eyes by the millions! ...I dunno... you do this better than me
Regret supporting Sanders? Regret voting for Johnson? You, I say this to EVERY LIBERAL WHO 3RD-PARTY BLAMES, need to GET THE **** over your candidate sabotaging their party's presidency. EVERY THIRD PARTY VOTER wants you to own up to your own loss, and quit spinning it as "blah blah now I bet they regret not surrendering their vote for whoever we want blah blah".
As we've established, if Liberal voters voted for who they DIRECTLY ALIGN with, well, they'd probably actually align closer to Vermin Supreme than Liberals or Conservatives, but they'd align closer to Libertarians as well.
Quit telling people what I think, or at least get it right. You really piss a bloke off when you make up ****. Tatsu's claims are as fake a news as the Daily Show.
Next time, nominate Warren or something, you piss-taker...
In case you forgot the score, Hitler didn't reign 22 years in office, because OF America. If we can take care of your problems, we can take care of ours. Because, you know, we have the guns. Trump can either accept his 4 year presidency, barring impeachment for a grievous offense, or we have the guns. You're probably all against that, until it actually came to a government overstep, and then when it threatens troops on your door and you don't have a gun, you're glad someone else does.
We will still blame Hillary, because escalations over Syria spell World War 3 as well. We had two paths to WW3, thanks to BOTH crummy parties, and we chose the right-hand path. We could have chose to walk the **** away, but we didn't elect "Johnson", and the left could have led differently, but we didn't nominate "Sanders".
@thetrophysystem "yes that post about hillary was supper important let's continue on that super important topic and not treat it like the side note it is this way nobody notices the shortcomings listed in my other responses."
this really is textbook trump-tactics (never-mind using his rhetoric "fake news" "daily show"??? I haven't seen a daily show post in this thread in like 40+ pages) . respond to this : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-politics-thread-play-nicely.70907/page-139#post-1139806
You know how important it is? Well, how's about you nominate Hillary again in 2020, against Trump. I dare you. I double dare you. You know damn good and well what'll happen. No balls. You'll elect someone that makes sense, now that the 2016 election slapped some of that sense into your skills.
In 2016, they chose (not democratically nominated, as shown by Wikileaks), to nominate Hillary, because how could they lose? Now, in 2020, they'll dig deep and put full effort into winning, and NOT nominate Hillary, because they're taking things seriously. Good, we've already changed the Democrat party a little bit, now if only we can make them less authoritarian. Maybe that'll come with the candidate, with any luck we'll nominate one the PEOPLE want instead.
can you please realize this is what's going on?
EDIT : upon further reflection : I realize you won't on your own.
I'll explain the scene :
so it LOOKS like the two are having a conversation but each have their own set of preoccupations and as a result they exchange nothing.
The animators are quite ingenious about the selected topics for both sides because neither are "right" or "wrong" neither's topic is "more important" relatively they each have their own importance.
I've been quite clear on why hillary isn't the topic and why she can't be but simply put : She is your fascination. your obsession. you probably continue droning on about her while you're thinking of more things you didn't get to say yet in this forum. you probably talk about her in your sleep.
but I'm quite persuaded we've covered the subject extensively and there's no more use for bringing her up given the current conjuncture but..... me mentioning that is enough to get you going again.... hence the above rick & morty excerpt.
Oh yeah, because I've never seen Rick and Morty, not that it isn't the most relevant political evidence ever...
Besides, it is NOT Trump supporter tactics, when used by a non-Trump supporter. Can you not understand some people are pissed at both parties? Telling us we're terrible people for not loving your party, is a Trump-tactic, so I guess liberals are Trump supporters now. Or, you're just both terrible authoritarian parties.
I can legit understand being pissed at both. that's not what this is. keep telling yourself that or whatever but I'm persuaded deep down you already know that's not what this is.
What It Is, Certifiably: I hate most politicians anyway, but it got super terribad this last election, politicians started taking photo ops pouring beers and doing it terribly at that, instead of doing political shtuff, and I just hate the nonsense and want a reset of political party nonsense, because the extremes of both parties are stapling crummy policies to their "agendas", but apparently that's too much to ask of their most die-hard supporters who can't recognize their own side's hypocrisy. Like when their politician poured the awful pint.
@thetrophysystem I... don't get what you're on about.
we complain about trump then get a retort from you so we assume... nevermind.
could you elaborate?
because it's not metaphors or any other linguistic concept anymore. not if it makes the statement buried so deep you don't know what it's author is thinking.
what is it you're thinking? what exactly is your statement?
no more beer analogies ...or terrible misogynistic memes for that matter
I'm pretty sure, last statement summarizes. Keep asking though, because I have to answer repetitively 12 times a day, and the one time I don't, you'll go "interpreting vague/lack of answer as you're racist". That's how it always is. I've said I'm not a racist, I can't be bothered to say it again. Try pulling important quotes from what I've said:
see this is what I mean.
everything throphysystem MUST go on tangents. even when it's about explaining yourself.
"let's pile on new garbage so the old garbage isn't as noticeable YARRR!"
who's calling who a racist and when? and if that was what the first post was about then why didn't it include the word "racist".
also how did we get from healthcare supporters being thrown in jail to Hillary/beer to racism again? I feel like I played no part and even in trying to hinder the grasshopper madness I've only made it worse.
How is referencing old garbage, piling on new garbage to make the old garbage less noticeable?
if it's out of nowhere and doesn't answer/ignores the points being made on what you JUST said and as a result isn't a-propos .... it definitely is.
Opposing gay marriage is not a political stance. It's a cultural belief reinforced by several hundred years of Christian-based ideology within the States (or others such as Orthodox Judaism or conservative Islam).
Reframing it as a political stance so you can better defend government intervention against it, instead of actually defending the rights of gay people, is a slight indicator that people might be biased against gay people on the subject.
If you don't like these inferences, maybe stop defending peoples' cultural beliefs that oppose gay marriage?
And trophy, going on a multi-paragraph rant about immigration when we were explicitly discussing gay marriage is a tiring attempt at a diversion.
Where on earth did I say opposing gay marriage because you hate gay people is valid? I explicitly said the opposite!
By your own admission, I think we need to circle back to the English put-down you used on yourself. It's not one I assume by default, but as you've admitted it there's obviously a breakdown in communiations somewhere!
Separate names with a comma.