Why Trumpers? I am truly baffled
Quote: SOOPOOI assume you permanently banned that member? If not please explain?
I am wondering if that "person" should be reported to the FBI anyway. The thread did appear here, and that means it likely is out there somewhere to be found.
Maybe it is no big deal and just deleting it is okay.
Quote: billryanTrumps spokesperson is now saying Obama and Hillary are directly responsible for Capt Khans death.
She is half right.
Obama wasn't even in the Senate when Hillary voted in favor of the war in which Captain Khan was killed.
Trump called Captain Khan a hero and said he would be alive today had he been President at the time, since he would not have invaded Iraq.
So would another 4,423 Americans and 500,000 Iraqis.
Damn shame.
Quote: TankoShe is half right.
Obama wasn't even in the Senate when Hillary voted in favor of the war in which Captain Khan was killed.
Trump called Captain Khan a hero and said he would be alive today had he been President at the time, since he would not have invaded Iraq.
So would another 4,423 Americans and 500,000 Iraqis.
Damn shame.
Except for that unfortunate *fact* that Trump supported the Iraq war back then, contrary to the lie he tells now that he didn't.
Quote: TankoTrump called Captain Khan a hero and said he would be alive today had he been President at the time, since he would not have invaded Iraq.
Trump was only against the Iraq invasion after he was for it. And if we've learned anything from AZDuffman it's that people don't change, so Trump has actually always been for the Iraq war and he's been lying this whole time about changing his position.Quote: Donald Trump, on whether he would invade Iraq, September 11, 2002Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.
The only difference is that Trump would have kept the Iraqi oil wealth instead of leaving it with the Iraqi people:
Quote: Donald Trump, to the Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2011I always heard that when we went into Iraq we went in for the oil. I said, ‘oh, that sounds smart.’ But, we never did. … I would take the oil. … You know, we have thousands of people that died, our great soldiers, they died. … I would not want to be the one that would tell their [U.S. soldiers who had fought in Iraq] parents that your son or daughter has died in vain, been wounded in vain. ... I’d give plenty to Iraq, I’d keep plenty for us, I’d pay back Britain, I’d pay back everybody that was involved. … We will make a fortune. They have fifteen trillion dollars worth of oil. … We are not going to hand that oil to Iran.
Quote: Donald Trump, on Meet the Press, August 16, 2015Take back the oil. We take over the oil which we should have done in the first place. … And what I would do with the money that we make, which would be tremendous, I would take care of the families of the soldiers that were killed, the families of the soldiers, the wounded warriors that I see.
Don't take it from me. Take it from Trump himself. Not only would he have invaded Iraq, he would have plundered them.
I'm sorry.Quote: beachbumbabsMods are masking swears, as we have been.
Mods fix format errors, at least I do. The "unnamed admin" tag still appears.
If I edit for content, which I generally don't, I make it known, as in swears. Format errors I fix, I don't bother.
I will admit to censoring/deleting one thread this week, other than killing kitchens in the UK. Some "person" who's posting regularly started a thread asking for suggestions and comments on how to assassinate one of the major candidates. I hope you and everyone else understands that we don't need the FBI investigating this board.
Person in quotes above in order to keep me from calling them what I really think of that post.
I sent a screenshot to the Secret Service, and copied the FBI.
I was simply in a bad mood ;-)
Come to think of it, that's funny term, Secret Service....Quote: TwoFeathersATLI'm sorry.
I sent a screenshot to the Secret Service, and copied the FBI.
I was simply in a bad mood ;-)
It ain't exactly a secret if everyone including the news for profit outfits constantly refer to it ;-)
Quote: MathExtremist
Don't take it from me. Take it from Trump himself. Not only would he have invaded Iraq, he would have plundered them.
He's slightly confused about how the Petro dollar works. They, and the rest of the world, are being plundered by us already. Maybe he knows exactly how it works and that's his way of dumbing it down for the average American. In his example, he invents the Petro dollar like Al Gore invented the internet
"Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/
Assuming nobody still believes Saddam did 9/11 and was making ICBMs in the back of invisible Winnebagos.
Trump's more of a nationalist, which I don't like much, but is preferable to serving TNCs. If our soldiers are gonna die and be traumatized to facilitate the theft of oil, maybe it should be on behalf of their country.
Anywho, here's another one. Free Speech. Big issue for me. Trump is shaky at best. In a better world, one reason for supporting the Democrat against someone like Trump would be free speech and civil liberties. Unfortunately, the nominee is Hillary Clinton, an opponent of both. At worst, Trump will be as bad as Hillary here.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/03/hail-to-the-censor
"We're going to have to have more support from our friends in the technology world to deny online space," Clinton warned, citing the deadly terrorist attack in San Bernardino four days earlier by a U.S.-born Muslim and his Pakistani wife. "Just as we have to destroy their would-be caliphate, we have to deny them online space."
But doesn't that go against the American cultural and constitutional tradition of free speech? Clinton anticipated the argument: "You're going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, 'freedom of speech,' etc.," she said. "But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we've got to shut off their means of communicating."
Quote: Rigondeaux
But doesn't that go against the American cultural and constitutional tradition of free speech? Clinton anticipated the argument: "You're going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, 'freedom of speech,' etc.," she said. "But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we've got to shut off their means of communicating."
Benjamin Franklin's pursed, disapproving face was tailor made for exactly this view.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Tsk, tsk, madame.
Quote: beachbumbabsHow do you equate 6 years working for, and getting, health care coverage for 8 million disabled and special needs kids with disdain for the welfare of other people? That is more people right there than everyone on this forum will help in a lifetime.
Every politician does some positive stuff and maybe has some vision in their head in which they are making the world better or whatever. What makes em tick is separate, but interesting question.
I'm sure you could dig up a bunch of examples of history's greatest monsters advocating and bringing about a handful of good policies that helped some people.
The overall program advocated by the Clintons, however, is rule by TNCs, the erosion of the working and middle class, concentration of wealth and power at the top, endless war, mass incarceration, etc. etc.
So, sure, The Clintons have occasionally thrown people scraps, often after destroying their jobs or having their parents thrown in prison or killed in a war. Do an image search on "Iraq birth defects." They also did that.
Quote: BBBHow do you equate 6 years working for, and getting, health care coverage for 8 million disabled and special needs kids with disdain for the welfare of other people? That is more people right there than everyone on this forum will help in a lifetime.
Quote: RigondeauxEvery politician does some positive stuff and maybe has some vision in their head in which they are making the world better or whatever. What makes em tick is separate, but interesting question.
I'm sure you could dig up a bunch of examples of history's greatest monsters advocating and bringing about a handful of good policies that helped some people.
The overall program advocated by the Clintons, however, is rule by TNCs, the erosion of the working and middle class, concentration of wealth and power at the top, endless war, mass incarceration, etc. etc.
So, sure, The Clintons have occasionally thrown people scraps, often after destroying their jobs or having their parents thrown in prison or killed in a war. Do an image search on "Iraq birth defects." They also did that.
T'was a man who did some really great things. He was a soldier who ended up hospitalized for his country. He was a street artist, perhaps his day's Banksy. He was proud of his country and of his people, and one day found himself drawn toward that path. He became a pol and helped create infrastructure to unite the country. He helped make transportation affordable to the masses. He worked build sites as a laborer. He wasn't just a no-name grunt, either. Hell, he corresponded with Mahatma Ghandi. And compassionate? A death in his family and the resulting autopsy left such a mark he ceased eating meat. He became a pioneer in the world of conservation, and established guidelines for the proper harvesting of animals, many of which are still followed today.
I could go on, but my point is made - From the proper angles, anyone can seem like a decent fellow.
Quote: MathExtremistTrump was only against the Iraq invasion after he was for it.
Whether or not Trump would have invaded Iraq, we will never know for sure.
His comments immediately after the war began, complained about it's cost and necessity.
He is an oaf, but whatever the case, we need to elect a candidate that will stop this endless war mongering.
Libya was no threat to the USA or Europe, but with no concern for the lives of the innocents, Obama joined 15 European nations and three Arab nations and spent $2 billion to overthrow Gaddafi.
Today we have an endless flow of refugees from Africa into Europe, and they are still fighting five years after Gaddafi was killed..
We are trying to do the same in Syria.
Assad is a democratically elected leader who took in 1.5 million Iraqi refugees from the war we started.
His economy collapsed due to the strain of this humanitarian gesture and the worst drought in 900 years.
Instead of helping him, Obama and Sec. Hillary sent guns and formed rebel groups against him.
These so called 'rebels' are as bad as ISIS.
FSA
If not for Putin stepping in at literally the last minute, Obama would have sent American troops to die there.
Now we are playing Chicken with the Russians on the Polish border.
Keep it up.
Tens of millions of lives lost or destroyed by our meddling.
This disgusting woman has a role in all of this.
Assange says his next leak will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
If what Assange says in this interview is true, Hillary and Obama are traitors and war criminals who should be prosecuted.
Assange
Would you or anyone still support her if what Assange says is true?
Quote: Rigondeaux. "Just as we have to destroy their would-be caliphate, we have to deny them online space."
Instead of censoring online recruitment videos, I think we should doctor them by adding to them.
Misinformation. We have the resources and skills of Hollywood's best. It's not censorship to add information and use impersonators.
Somewhat like those schemes where criminals show up to win a free prize and it's police sting operation.
But back to politics.
Quote: TankoWould you or anyone still support her if what Assange says is true?
Better to ask what difference does it make in voting for Trump. It doesn't. It doesn't make Trump a choice worth having.
Ever.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36967923
Jail time? Lol. A fine that would actually deter them from doing it again? Lol.
To steal a line from someone else: If a single mom gets a speeding ticket and is too broke to pay it, off to jail with her. Good luck kids.
That's where we are. That's soft fascism. And it's becoming set in stone.
I'm sure when the same entity paid Hillary half a million for two speeches, the contents of which are kept secret from the public, she was like, "I'm really going to be cracking down on you guys, so you better watch out!"
That's why I lean to Trump. We can't let the termites run wild until 2024, and then just hope it's not too late.
Quote: TankoHe is an oaf, but whatever the case, we need to elect a candidate that will stop this endless war mongering.
Quote: Donald TrumpIf we have nukes, why don't we use them?
Technically, you're right. Trump can't monger war *endlessly* because after he starts a global nuclear holocaust, the end will come quickly. Seems reasonable to vote for him, then.
And I have about as much faith in Assange's truthiness as I do in Donald Trump's. Why tease what's coming? Just release it. If it puts Hillary in jail, great, she's not on the menu for president anymore because she's *actually* a criminal. But if it doesn't, and the whole thing is just him posturing and lying for political gain, well there's your answer.
Okay, there are two points to make here. One is that you assume that because Hillary is crooked, that means Trump is necessarily not crooked. That's just nonsense. He is currently on trial for fraud and yesterday the judge denied a motion to dismiss because there was a "genuine issue of material fact." He has already been convicted of screwing people. I can't get over how okay with Trump's deceit everyone seems to be, yet so ready to jump down Hillary's throat for issues that never even got tried in a court. Bring the evidence, send her to trial. Or not, but stop beating on the past drum of perceived slights for which she was not found guilty.Quote: RigondeauxThat's where we are. That's soft fascism. And it's becoming set in stone.
I'm sure when the same entity paid Hillary half a million for two speeches, the contents of which are kept secret from the public, she was like, "I'm really going to be cracking down on you guys, so you better watch out!"
That's why I lean to Trump. We can't let the termites run wild until 2024, and then just hope it's not too late.
But more importantly -- far, far more importantly -- is that none of your future planning will matter if we never make it to 2024.
Quote:Commanders and officers in the field ― the people who would have to drop the bombs or launch the missiles ― are the final check on a president ordering first use of nuclear weapons. One person who knows all about that is John Noonan, who spent nearly four years manning an Air Force missile silo underneath the soil of Wyoming.
On Monday, following Scarborough’s comments, Noonan explained why Trump’s dalliance with nuclear weapons, however casual, makes him so unfit to be president.
The “idea that nukes would be used, say over Raqqa or Mosul, simply because we have no more allies and it’s a simple, easy fix is nauseating,” Noonan wrote in a series of tweets. “Simply signaling that you’re open to using strategic weapons as a tactical solution rewrites the rule book. Russia, China, others will respond. Nuclear deterrence is about balance. Trump is an elephant jumping up and down on one side of the scale. So damn dangerous.”
In a subsequent interview, Noonan noted that some of Trump’s other comments ― like saying he would “take out” the families of terrorists ― would demonstrate a willingness to break with conventions about the proper use of nuclear weapons. “Once concern about civilian casualties and collateral damage is out the window,” he said, “what’s to stop you from launching a couple of B-61 gravity bombs off a pair of F-16s in Syria?”
After Noonan left the military in 2010, he got involved in politics ― as a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard and, later, an adviser to Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-disqualifying_us_57a22e86e4b04414d1f2ffc5?section=&
If your house has termites, you tent it and fumigate. You don't drop napalm on your entire neighborhood.
Quote: MathExtremistYet you're voting for Trump. That tells me you think his past behavior -- swindling, fraudulent, hucksterism and utter lack of respect for women, minorities, and the military -- will carry forward into the White House and you're okay with that. You want a Commander in Chief who belittles the death of his soldiers. That's like a CEO hating his employees. Did you learn that in "low management training" too?
I have not seen any of what you say from Trump. I especially do not see an utter lack of respect for women and minorities. He sure respects women more than Hillary and Bill, that is for sure. Democrats were not bothered by a candidate who belittles the death of his soldiers. In fact, they attacked the motives of the soldiers who called him out on it, and do to this day!
Quote:I'm not even going to debate you on the more basic philosophy of human nature. Your general pessimism is, fortunately, not universally accepted. It may be commonplace to think so poorly of your fellow humans in your circle of friends, but I'm glad that not everyone is so curmudgeonly.
I am sure you do not want to debate me on it, because my position is simple and correct. If you want to act like the woman who thinks she can change her man feel free. An honest look will show that it does not happen. Winners keep being winners, losers keep being losers. and crooks keep being crooks.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have not seen any of what you say from Trump. I especially do not see an utter lack of respect for women
I actually believe that you "have not seen" any misogyny from Donald Trump in the dark corner of the Internet where you don't read anything. But out in the open, where the truth is, here's what Donald Trump has actually said about women:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Donald+Trump+sexism
No wait, don't read any of that. Wouldn't want to burst your blissful little bubble.
Quote:Winners keep being winners, losers keep being losers. and crooks keep being crooks.
Oh, so now you don't want a crook in the White House? What changed your mind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
Quote: TankoShe is half right.
Obama wasn't even in the Senate when Hillary voted in favor of the war in which Captain Khan was killed.
Trump called Captain Khan a hero and said he would be alive today had he been President at the time, since he would not have invaded Iraq.
So would another 4,423 Americans and 500,000 Iraqis.
Damn shame.
Actually, about 2% right, given that Hillary did vote in favor of the war. She was one of thousands in government who were proximately responsible for it. Putting a significant portion of the blame on her alone is asinine and stupid. It would have happened with or without her vote.
Of course, if you're a Trumper, Hillary is responsible for every bad thing that has happened ever since she was born. And BTW, I actually believe Trump when he says that had he been President at the time, he would not have invaded Iraq.
He would have nuked it.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have not seen any of what you say from Trump. I especially do not see an utter lack of respect for women and minorities. He sure respects women more than Hillary and Bill, that is for sure. Democrats were not bothered by a candidate who belittles the death of his soldiers. In fact, they attacked the motives of the soldiers who called him out on it, and do to this day!
I am sure you do not want to debate me on it, because my position is simple and correct. If you want to act like the woman who thinks she can change her man feel free. An honest look will show that it does not happen. Winners keep being winners, losers keep being losers. and crooks keep being crooks.
You know, spouting nonsense and saying "my nonsense is simple and correct" doesn't make what you're saying any less nonsensical. Trump is a sexist, misogynist bully. Remember when he said that Megyn Kelly must have been having her period when she dared to challenge him during one of the early primary debates? Go ahead, make an excuse for your hero about that. Whatever rationalization you come up with will be hilarious.
We have been aware for some time that you refuse to see what's wrong with Trump. What is puzzling is that you continue to make yourself look like an utter fool by saying things that are patently untrue. You think stubbornness is a virtue. You're like a toddler who tells his parents or teacher "the sun is green" and when corrected, just shouts "IS TOO! IS TOO!," louder and louder.
It isn't honorable to be the last (medium-sized muroidea) on the ship when it sinks. It just shows that you were too stupid to get off when you had the chance.
Further dialogue with you is a waste of keystrokes, so I'll put you in The Blocked Bin, where I keep the used kitty litter.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYou know, spouting nonsense and saying "my nonsense is simple and correct" doesn't make what you're saying any less nonsensical. Trump is a sexist, misogynist bully. Remember when he said that Megyn Kelly must have been having her period when she dared to challenge him during one of the early primary debates? Go ahead, make an excuse for your hero about that. Whatever rationalization you come up with will be hilarious.
She wants to play with the boys, the boys treated her as an equal. Boys can play rough.
Quote:Further dialogue with you is a waste of keystrokes, so I'll put you in The Blocked Bin, where I keep the used kitty litter.
A potentially-paid Hillary supporter blocks someone who refuses to join the Trump dogpile he starts and even instead refutes his claims? Oh well.
Quote: AZDuffmanShe wants to play with the boys, the boys treated her as an equal. Boys can play rough.
A potentially-paid Hillary supporter blocks someone who refuses to join the Trump dogpile he starts and even instead refutes his claims? Oh well.
O.M.G. Talk about a misogynistic comment. He treated her like a boy when he claimed she was on the rag. Yer killin me, AZD. I don't think we're paying you enough for the comedy routine.
Way to make s#/* up, too. Anybody who challenges your warped worldview has to be a paid supporter? Like they have to tie a pork chop around her neck for the dog to vote for her? You listen to too much toxic babble or something. I don't know where you get stuff.
Geez. Twice in one thread I'm writing back to you. It must be catching.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>Further dialogue with you is a waste of keystrokes, so I'll put you in The Blocked Bin, where I keep the used kitty litter.<snip>
You have to love a new member who starts a couple of threads to bash Trump and then starts blocking people who challenge any thing he says. That shows a total lack of interest in actual conversation. He has characterized every Trump supporter, or person who may lean towards Trump, as an uneducated knuckle-dragger, which is clearly not the case. Trump has support across the board from people of every education level. He (sometimes very badly) represents the people that are tired of the status quo. He is a million miles from perfect, but people are tired of "perfect politicians."
(...and I did say people and I did not say that I support him at this point. If I decided to vote for him, I will state it here. Trying to be part of a back and forth about the candidates and to say things that might offend some line-toeing HRC supporters does not, despite silly protestations by people who claim to have amazing mind reading powers, infer automatically support of Trump. If everyone here just said "Hillary is the greatest thing since sliced bread"...what would that be worth?)
Quote: MathExtremistOkay, there are two points to make here. One is that you assume that because Hillary is crooked, that means Trump is necessarily not crooked. That's just nonsense. He is currently on trial for fraud and yesterday the judge denied a motion to dismiss because there was a "genuine issue of material fact." He has already been convicted of screwing people. I can't get over how okay with Trump's deceit everyone seems to be, yet so ready to jump down Hillary's throat for issues that never even got tried in a court. Bring the evidence, send her to trial. Or not, but stop beating on the past drum of perceived slights for which she was not found guilty.
Again, I know trump's a crook. But he is not wealthy entirely from bribes that come from entities that are adversarial to me. I'm not sure why this is hard to get.
Let's say the Super Bowl is tomorrow. You can either have the game reffed by:
1) A bunch of guys who have been convicted of liquor store robberies, passing bad checks, and other misdeeds.
or
2) By some guys that the owner of one team picked off the streets. He funded all of their efforts to become refs. He paid millions of dollars to them personally, ostensibly to come give motivational talks to his groundskeepers. Also, these guys reffed a few regular season games and called penalties on that owner's team 1/10th as often as on their opponents. But they've never been convicted of a crime.
Anyway, my point there was more the 2024 thing. Maybe we can't wait till 2024 to put the bakes on the destruction of the democratic republic. If Hillary wins, she runs again in 2020, and likely loses to a candidate hand picked by the RNC. If Trump wins, Dem voters might be able to thwart their party and get a decent candidate in 2020. Either of these candidates is likely 1 term.
Quote:But more importantly -- far, far more importantly -- is that none of your future planning will matter if we never make it to 2024.
Quote:Commanders and officers in the field ― the people who would have to drop the bombs or launch the missiles ― are the final check on a president ordering first use of nuclear weapons. One person who knows all about that is John Noonan, who spent nearly four years manning an Air Force missile silo underneath the soil of Wyoming.
On Monday, following Scarborough’s comments, Noonan explained why Trump’s dalliance with nuclear weapons, however casual, makes him so unfit to be president.
The “idea that nukes would be used, say over Raqqa or Mosul, simply because we have no more allies and it’s a simple, easy fix is nauseating,” Noonan wrote in a series of tweets. “Simply signaling that you’re open to using strategic weapons as a tactical solution rewrites the rule book. Russia, China, others will respond. Nuclear deterrence is about balance. Trump is an elephant jumping up and down on one side of the scale. So damn dangerous.”
In a subsequent interview, Noonan noted that some of Trump’s other comments ― like saying he would “take out” the families of terrorists ― would demonstrate a willingness to break with conventions about the proper use of nuclear weapons. “Once concern about civilian casualties and collateral damage is out the window,” he said, “what’s to stop you from launching a couple of B-61 gravity bombs off a pair of F-16s in Syria?”
After Noonan left the military in 2010, he got involved in politics ― as a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard and, later, an adviser to Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-disqualifying_us_57a22e86e4b04414d1f2ffc5?section=&
If your house has termites, you tent it and fumigate. You don't drop napalm on your entire neighborhood.
Maybe he got the idea from Hillary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew another distinction between herself and Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ah, the irony when someone cites an article that entirely disproves their position:Quote: RigondeauxMaybe he got the idea from Hillary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew another distinction between herself and Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Quote: Clinton in 2007"Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.
Yet you want to equate that to Trump, who isn't just answering hypothetical nuke questions but asking them.
My lord. Do you really not see the difference in threat level between acknowledging that you have a bomb and asking "Why shouldn't I drop my bomb on your house?"
It doesn't matter -- there are some who will vote for Trump regardless of what he says or does. Even if he breaks the first rule and talks about Fight Club. Maybe that's you, maybe it's not. I hope not.
Quote: beachbumbabsO.M.G. Talk about a misogynistic comment. He treated her like a boy when he claimed she was on the rag.
Yes, as a female you do not see as much how men treat each other. You make a comment like that or you have one made about you all the time, obviously make-oriented. And you make a comment back meanwhile let the one towards you roll off your back. I have worked in groups of guys you would swear hated each others guts. Some guys can't man up and take it. But despite the misandric views of the liberal mainstream, this is not some kind of caveman thing but how men behave to each other.
Quote:Way to make s#/* up, too. Anybody who challenges your warped worldview has to be a paid supporter?
"Anyone?" No, plenty here challenge my viewpoint. But only one lately has shown up out of nowhere and 2 of the 3 threads he starts are about Trump and when challenged he runs to a safe space of blocking those he dislikes. 25 years in forums makes you see thru certain kinds of games. I smell an activist. We have had them here before, IIRC on Obamacare but the issue could be wrong.
If you replace "men" and "guys" with "men like me" and "guys like me," perhaps you would be accurate. But it is objectively false that all men act like jerks to each other when they're together.Quote: AZDuffmanYes, as a female you do not see as much how men treat each other. You make a comment like that or you have one made about you all the time, obviously make-oriented. And you make a comment back meanwhile let the one towards you roll off your back. I have worked in groups of guys you would swear hated each others guts. Some guys can't man up and take it. But despite the misandric views of the liberal mainstream, this is not some kind of caveman thing but how men behave to each other.
If I had to guess, you identify more with the grumpy dad in this video than with Owen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xGoBlI_fdg
Turns out, the world we're in -- and the world we're building -- needs more Owens and fewer grumpy dads.
He walked out of the meeting at its conclusion and told another employee that the bitches turned him in and I must be a faggot to get upset about it. He actually pursued unemployment benefits and argued that that is how real men behave. When he lost, he told me I was lucky that a Jew heard the case.
Quote: MathExtremistBut it is objectively false that all men act like jerks to each other when they're together.
Work on a crew of men doing manly work and you tend to get what I am describing. Please save me the math view of "once false always false." I am not doing a census of all men who work in groups. I am telling you that men breaking balls among each other is normal, and it was more normal pre-1970s as the culture had forced-feminization at so many levels.
The more physical the job and the more group oriented it is the more it happens. Not everybody has been on such work, but if you are a guy to be on one is an important manly building block in your development. It shows you how to roll with the punches and not be the girly-man who takes too much personally.
Quote: MathExtremistAh, the irony when someone cites an article that entirely disproves their position:
Yet you want to equate that to Trump, who isn't just answering hypothetical nuke questions but asking them.
My lord. Do you really not see the difference in threat level between acknowledging that you have a bomb and asking "Why shouldn't I drop my bomb on your house?"
It doesn't matter -- there are some who will vote for Trump regardless of what he says or does. Even if he breaks the first rule and talks about Fight Club. Maybe that's you, maybe it's not. I hope not.
Maybe I'm lost, but the emphasis in her quote was non-use.
Obama: I would never nuke Pakistan to get Bin Laden.
Hillary: I'd be open to doing that.
Maybe it's all talk, or a bluff, or whatever, but then maybe it is with Trump too. I won't vote for either.
When you speak in unqualified generalities but really only mean a small subset, you tend to be misunderstood. As Ross Perot once said, "work on it."Quote: AZDuffmanWork on a crew of men doing manly work and you tend to get what I am describing. Please save me the math view of "once false always false." I am not doing a census of all men who work in groups. I am telling you that men breaking balls among each other is normal, and it was more normal pre-1970s as the culture had forced-feminization at so many levels.
The more physical the job and the more group oriented it is the more it happens. Not everybody has been on such work, but if you are a guy to be on one is an important manly building block in your development. It shows you how to roll with the punches and not be the girly-man who takes too much personally.
When I was a teenager, I worked construction / interior demolition in a hard-hat area. Believe me, I know about "manly" men, they were all around me. My arms were ridiculous by the end of the summer. I also know that the job I have now isn't "manly" at all -- I sit at a desk and type all day long -- but I earn >25x as much. If you think being manly is more valuable than making a lot of money, you're in the minority. Objectively speaking, the economy values brains over brawns. According to salary.com, the average senior carpenter makes just under 50k. The average senior software engineer makes almost twice as much and the average entry-level software engineer makes $64k.
Stop pining for the days when men were men and nerds were just punching bags. Those days are long gone.
Quote: billryanWasn't it only yesterday you were taking midlevel management classes for the bank you worked for?
More like 20+ years ago well before I migrated to banking.
That's not what she said; rather, that's what was interpreted by Ms. Kornblut, the reporter. The reporter's spin isn't important. What Clinton actually said wasQuote: RigondeauxMaybe I'm lost, but the emphasis in her quote was non-use.
Obama: I would never nuke Pakistan to get Bin Laden.
Hillary: I'd be open to doing that.
Quote:"Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.
"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse,"
There is a difference, especially when something as important as nuclear foreign policy is involved. That's why Trump's sledgehammer approach to foreign policy is so unwise. He doesn't appreciate -- and therefore cannot wield -- subtlety and nuance. But that's required for statecraft. The world isn't black and white.
So when Trump says "We have the nukes, why can't we just nuke them?" that's the polar opposite of Clinton saying "I'm not going to make blanket statements or talk about hypotheticals."
Quote: MathExtremistWhen you speak in unqualified generalities but really only mean a small subset, you tend to be misunderstood. As Ross Perot once said, "work on it."
Actually you might be better to learn how to talk in general terms.
Quote:I also know that the job I have now isn't "manly" at all -- I sit at a desk and type all day long -- but I earn >25x as much.
Good for you.
Quote:If you think being manly is more valuable than making a lot of money, you're in the minority. Objectively speaking, the economy values brains over brawns. According to salary.com, the average senior carpenter makes just under 50k. The average senior software engineer makes almost twice as much and the average entry-level software engineer makes $64k.
Stop pining for the days when men were men and nerds were just punching bags. Those days are long gone.
And of course you miss the point of "manly." I am talking about rolling with punches and not taking things personally. That kind of thinking I have found takes place more in the rough and tumble trades than in sanitized offices. I have worked in both and that is what I have seen. It is not just at your work where you need this ability, it is in life.
Quote: AZDuffman
And of course you miss the point of "manly." I am talking about rolling with punches and not taking things personally. That kind of thinking I have found takes place more in the rough and tumble trades than in sanitized offices. I have worked in both and that is what I have seen. It is not just at your work where you need this ability, it is in life.
It's very simple. Divide the country in half, physically. The men that know how to get their hands dirty, primarily republicans, take one side. The guys with the girlie hands and the high salaries, take the other side. We get rid of the EPA and OSHA, etc., on our side, they can have all the government they want on their side. In less than two years, let's see which side is starving, and begging to put the country back together.
Quote: bobbartopIt's very simple. Divide the country in half, physically. The men that know how to get their hands dirty, primarily republicans, take one side. The guys with the girlie hands and the high salaries, take the other side. We get rid of the EPA and OSHA, etc., on our side, they can have all the government they want on their side. In less than two years, let's see which side is starving, and begging to put the country back together.
On a board known for idiotic statements, I think we have our Drivel of the Year award.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's not what she said; rather, that's what was interpreted by Ms. Kornblut, the reporter. The reporter's spin isn't important. What Clinton actually said was
"Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.
"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse,"
And that was in response to Obama saying he absolutely would not nuke Pakistan to get to terrorists.
I guess there's some interpretation involved, but it seems fairly obvious.
A: I would never use nukes against Pakistan to get a terrorist. That's off the table.
B: In response to A, I say it is a mistake to make blanket statements about use or NON-USE of nukes. (A was only speaking of non-use).
B is saying that nuking a country to get terrorists is on the table. Not as bad as Trump, but still horrific. Probably a bluff. But then we might say Trump is also bluffing.
Unless the reporter has lied about the context of the statement.
And what will you do when you run out of cholesterol pills?Quote: bobbartopIt's very simple. Divide the country in half, physically. The men that know how to get their hands dirty, primarily republicans, take one side. The guys with the girlie hands and the high salaries, take the other side. We get rid of the EPA and OSHA, etc., on our side, they can have all the government they want on their side. In less than two years, let's see which side is starving, and begging to put the country back together.
But then again, manly men don't need no schedules.
Quote: billryanOn a board known for idiotic statements, I think we have our Drivel of the Year award.
Almost as idiotic as your claim that American History belonged in grammar school and was BENEATH a college level study. I mean, that was beauty. I saved it on my hard drive and fully intend to frame it.
By the way, my "hypothetical" is a sure thing, like Secretariat in a cheap claiming race. In fact, allow me to modify my proposal. Let's not divide the country in half, let's just separate ONE SINGLE STATE. Go ahead, pick one. Put all the conservatives in that one state, and leave all the "others" in the rest of the states, and the same result. In less than two years, y'all will be starving, and BEGGING to join us in our state. Guaranteed.
And btw, you guys can take The Bush Family and John McCain with you. You can have 'em.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd what will you do when you run out of cholesterol pills?
No problem. Quinoa and almond milk. We'll grow the almonds, but we may need to strike up a free trade agreement with Bolivia.
But thanks for reminding me, I failed to think about what would happen to Big Pharma. That's ok, you can keep them on your side.
Quote: billryanHalf the country won't know when to go to work as the clocks keep blinking 1200.
But then again, manly men don't need no schedules.
Never heard of roosters? duh
Quote: MathExtremistAnd what will you do when you run out of cholesterol pills?
Real men don't have strokes or heart attacks. They know how to get their hands dirty, and having dirty hands is, well, uh...dirty. They can then kill all those girlie men (apparently that is not an oxymoron in Bob World), take their money, and build a wall with it.
I would be willing to bet that a society with no environmental regulations or workplace safety laws would be the one that winds up starving, but maybe having all manly men and no girlie men girl male manly feminine hermaphrodite...wait, my head is spinning with this new type of logic...
What is it about conservatives that makes them believe that an absence of government is the epitome of human society? I guess they admire paradises on earth such as Somalia or Libya. No pesky gummint there. No siree Bobbartop.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikReal men don't have strokes or heart attacks. They know how to get their hands dirty, and having dirty hands is, well, uh...dirty. They can then kill all those girlie men (apparently that is not an oxymoron in Bob World), take their money, and build a wall with it.
I would be willing to bet that a society with no environmental regulations or workplace safety laws would be the one that winds up starving, but maybe having all manly men and no girlie men girl male manly feminine hermaphrodite...wait, my head is spinning with this new type of logic...
What is it about conservatives that makes them believe that an absence of government is the epitome of human society? I guess they admire paradises on earth such as Somalia or Libya. No pesky gummint there. No siree Bobbartop.
If my hypothetical comes true, I just want you to know that you're not making any points with that tone.
Quote: bobbartopAlmost as idiotic as your claim that American History belonged in grammar school and was BENEATH a college level study. I mean, that was beauty. I saved it on my hard drive and fully intend to frame it.
By the way, my "hypothetical" is a sure thing, like Secretariat in a cheap claiming race. In fact, allow me to modify my proposal. Let's not divide the country in half, let's just separate ONE SINGLE STATE. Go ahead, pick one. Put all the conservatives in that one state, and leave all the "others" in the rest of the states, and the same result. In less than two years, y'all will be starving, and BEGGING to join us in our state. Guaranteed.
And btw, you guys can take The Bush Family and John McCain with you. You can have 'em.
Saying that a hypothetical situation, that by definition hasn't happened, is a "sure thing" is doubling down on your idiocy. You have no way of knowing what would happen, only your uninformed (completely, utterly, data-deprived) opinion of what you would LIKE to happen. You are bleating the conservative mantra: "Duhhhh...government bad." In fact, we have cleaner air, safer food, better and safer transportation, etc. etc. etc. because of BEEEEEG BAAAAAAAD government agencies. But feel free to blather on.
Just to point something out, though--the hypothetical situation you would like to see ALREADY EXISTS to a great extent. Oregon and Washington are neatly divided in half by the Cascade mountains and by politics. The western halves are educated, liberal, and sane; the eastern halves are conservative wacko gun nuts. The east-of-the Cascades region gave us Ammon Bundy and the mouth-breathers who took over that wildlife refuge. The western part of each state has over 50% higher per capita income, triple the percentage of college graduates, 10% higher life expectancy, and the region is a tech and advanced manufacturing hub. The western regions are centers of learning, innovation, and prosperity, The eastern regions are wonderful places to watch a cowboy bugger sheep.
Oh yeah---when you say ""guaranteed," are you actually putting up any security to "guarantee" that you are right? Will you donate your entire net worth to the Clinton campaign if you're wrong? Kill yourself? Otherwise, you're just Trumping.
Rhode Island. Who's starving now?Quote: bobbartopBy the way, my "hypothetical" is a sure thing, like Secretariat in a cheap claiming race. In fact, allow me to modify my proposal. Let's not divide the country in half, let's just separate ONE SINGLE STATE. Go ahead, pick one. Put all the conservatives in that one state, and leave all the "others" in the rest of the states, and the same result. In less than two years, y'all will be starving, and BEGGING to join us in our state. Guaranteed.
