Page #30
Pages: #1... #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 ...#44
New Comment Rating: -4 Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
Which is nothing less than what you usually bring to the table,
but when you agree with them, their words are gospel to you.
By the way, why do you call them angry? They sounded completely calm.
Lauren Boebert's main thing in politics is saying people should respect Christian morality (whatever that is) and support 'family values'. Then she shows clearly she doesn't have any 'Christian morality' or 'family values'. Voters who hold up high that 'Christian morality' and 'family values' are not happy about that.
You have supported 'Christian morality' often, if I understand correctly.
As far as I understand Republican 'family values', you seem to support those too.
So, don't you care about Lauren Boebert showing that she just uses those values
as political points, but doesn't give a crap about them?
I would expect you to be fuming mad. I would, if one of my representatives shows themselves to be a massive hypocrite.
There are extremist in the conservative movement ,and her and Marjorie"spelling" are 2 of them
It's a damn shame that people vote for people like that.
Mike Pence is also a lunatic Christian conservative extremist,
but at least he's a real one and not a fake hypocrite.
You know where you stand with a real one. Only the devil knows
what you can expect of fake ones like Boebert and Greene.
After secular humanism, I think Christian morality is at least something.
At least Mike Pence shows some aversion to lying and some morality, sometimes.
Boebert and Greene have no morality. They only have their own self interests.
It’s got to be better than BLM ✊🏿
"Jordan Klepper Finds Out if Democracy is Done For | The Daily Show."
only registered users can see external links
Whatever you say, it's funny!
but you do see evidence of Biden's reduced cognitive state.
Even if the last thing were true, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
It shows something is wrong with YOUR cognitive state.
You're mindless devotees to anything the narcissist buffoon says and does.
It doesn't matter what despicable act he does, you'll deny or defend it.
If he started to support flat earth 'theory', you would believe it.
It doesn't matter if he makes it up while he speaks, or contradicts himself
30 seconds later, or everything he does contradicts his words, or reality itself has to end to make his words even sound true, you will accept anything he says as the absolute truth and you all will follow him like lemmings off a cliff.
THAT'S A CULT. You're The Cult of Trump.
It is all politically motivated and I don't feel like there is any reasons to be going thru all this.
Like I said before, if Donald had took a dog catchers job and dropped out of site, none of this would be happening.
It is all to interfere with the 24 election. The court dates are arranged to interfere with his campaign stops and rally's. All deliberate.
Besides, where the hell will you find a non biased jury for a trial involving a former President?
"I object! Your honor, the prosecution wants to prove how my client murdered his wife,
but "I don't feel like there is any reasons to be going thru all this!"."
"I object! Your honor; "Every member of the jury has seen my client on the news,
so they are all biassed against my client!"
I would say, only use non-voters as jury in Trump's trial. There are enough of them.
"if Donald had took a dog catchers job and dropped out of site, none of this would be happening."
Maybe so, but he shows a commitment to keep destroying democracy, so the law choose to act.
But, here is an idea; Trump could have returned those classified documents, when the national archives asked for them. Or when they forced him to return the classified documents, he could have returned them then, instead of having his lawyers sign off on a statement that he returned all of them. Or he could have not get caught asking security personal to destroy evidence that he was moving classified documents, after he was ordered to not do that. Trump had so many chances to not do crimes or not make his previous crimes any worse, but he kept doing more and more and more.
Just showing you that it's not all about 'to interfere with the 24 election'.
only registered users can see external links
You know how much homophobic propaganda Jesse Lee Peterson has thrown out over the years and that he turned out to be massively gay himself right? I know I'm doing an 'Ad Hominem' fallacy here, but if a source has proven to be that dishonest, why do we even listen to the man? Has he accepted that he made mistakes and changed his ways?
Besides, you should have been listening to the JUDGE, not the host
And why should I listen to this particular judge? He doesn't look very trustworthy.
"Former television judge Joe Brown has been released from jail after serving a five-day jail sentence for contempt of court."
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
He sounds like a fallen darling, who's now grifting for the right.
Still, if he's got good legal arguments, you can present them here yourself
and save me the trouble.
By the way, there is more evidence turning up that Trump and Giuliani were selling pardons for $ 2 million a pop. If that turns out to be indictable, that's worse than every rumor about Biden your side has even fantasized about. That can be court case #5. (or am I forgetting a few?)
only registered users can see external links
Was a high school foot ball player.
only registered users can see external links
A conspiracy means there's something worth conspiring over.
Maybe it is to you, but to normal people it is laughable.
It childish racist nonsense.
If it turned out to be true, what would change for the world?
For me, it wouldn't change anything, I would just think:
"OK, it's sad that they thought they needed to lie about it."
It's like the flat earth conspiracy; why would almost everyone conspire together
to say the world is an oblate spheroid, instead of flat? Why?
However, if that turned out to be true, it would change everything. Wouldn't it?
All that is hypothetical. Let's say, for the sake of argument that we don't know Michelle's gender. Fine, no problem. Michelle's gender, whether M , F or neither, is not a cause of alarm or concern to anyone.
True, we do know the gender of Michelle Obama; she's a woman.
We are not 100.0000% sure of her sex though.
The video is of course just right-wing bullshit, but however unlikely, it is possible that Michelle Obama was born as a man, or with some characteristics of a man, and that she has had surgeries and therapy to look like a woman, all in secret and that all medical medical personnel involved is doing their job to keep it private, all medical records are secure, maybe in a vault somewhere, or maybe even in the boxes that Trump stole, and he's so generous as to respect the Obama's privacy.
There is indeed a 0.00001% chance of all of that being true.
However, there is of course no reason to think it's true, but that's the only thing
you have, to cope with the mountains of evidence stacking up against your former president, showing that he's a criminal and a traitor.
Maybe liberals should allow you that nonsense. It's the only thing you have.
Michelle Obama is a woman, the overwhelming evidence shows.
But let's say she was born a man. Why do they find it offensive? What's the problem here I really fail to understand.
They don't really think Michelle Obama is (or was) a man,
but they just like to pretend, to 'own the libs'.
Grifters are imagining all sorts of lib 'conspiracies' to create false equivalencies.
It's a distraction from their party being useless criminal traitors.
Little correction, they are talking about her sex.
Michelle Obama obviously identifies as a women,
even if she had a dick.
When was the term gender first used?
In 1955, the controversial and innovative sexologist John Money first used the term “gender” in a way that we all now take for granted: to describe a human characteristic. Money's work broke new ground, opening a new field of research in sexual science and giving currency to medical ideas about human sexuality.
In other words, someone decided to change shit that didn't need changing.
Derivation
The modern English word gender comes from the Middle English gender, gendre, a loanword from Anglo-Norman and Middle French gendre. This, in turn, came from Latin genus. Both words mean "kind", "type", or "sort". They derive ultimately from a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root *ǵénh₁- 'to beget', which is also the source of kin, kind, king, and many other English words, with cognates widely attested in many Indo-European languages. It appears in Modern French in the word genre (type, kind, also genre sexuel) and is related to the Greek root gen- (to produce), appearing in gene, genesis, and oxygen. The Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language of 1882 defined gender as kind, breed, sex, derived from the Latin ablative case of genus, like genere natus, which refers to birth. The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED1, Volume 4, 1900) notes the original meaning of gender as "kind" had already become obsolete.
If they had the term 'genre sexuel', than 'genre' didn't mean 'sex',
or it would have been a tautology.
Conservatives started using the term 'gender' for 'sex', because they didn't want
to say 'sex', because of prudishness.
Just like in some red states they say 'chest feeding' instead of 'breast feeding'.
If you're so picky about terms, than why did your side destroy the meaning of; 'Liberal', 'Patriotism', 'Rule of Law', 'National Security', 'Family Values' and 'Life'. You turned those terms into complete filth.
Not to mention how you bastardized the term 'woke'.
/mql3pb0vi8jxpic.html
You call it "prudish", we call it being polite and respectful and not using words that arouse or stimulate a sexual thought during meetings and situations it would be awkward .
I guess you don't mind men and young boys walking around with their dicks poked out seeing half naked women at a funeral or similar event.
Understand that words are just are intended for facilitating language.
When there are new developments in the world, new words are created and sometimes words get a different meaning. That can be a problem, if words have different meaning in different groups, because it will create misunderstanding. That's why they invented dictionaries, to define words. That's the only thing dictionaries do; confirm what the majority thinks a word means, unless it's an academic or scientific term, then the meaning of those words are more carefully protected. However, academics and scientists sometimes have meetings between specialists, to discuss if the terminology is still accurate, and if not, improve them when necessary. That's how the International Astronomical Union introduced the term 'dwarf planet' and redefined the term 'planet'. The terms 'sex' and 'gender' are not just publicly owned, because there is an academic field of study around those subjects and the science of Biology determines how sex is biologically defined. That's not your 1950's biology, but the specialists on the cutting edge.
The words we are discussing are only awkward for prudish people.
When a young boy walks around with his dicks poked out, in my country,
everyone just laughs and his parent tidies him up and corrects him by saying:
"It's not decent to do that! Don't make fun of a funeral!".
I imagine in your country people will have a hissy fit, in similar situations.
I heard one anecdote from a colleague once, who was sent for a job to the states for the first time, and said in a meeting "Can we open a window, I'm sweating my ass off here!". The whole room looked shocked at him, for the word 'ass',
and he was like: "Are you kidding me?". In my country, the reaction would be: "Yeah, I was just about to say that.".
There is social accepted behavior in my country and what people wear at a funeral is one of them. There's probably a difference in what you think is 'half naked', and the reaction to it might differ, but just because we are overal a lot less prudish, doesn't mean we lost our understanding of what's decent. We just take offense way less and we certainly don't change terms over it. Actually we would take offense if some part of our country starts using 'chest feeding' for 'breast feeding'.
Your opinions count for at maximum 30% of Americans.
Still a fucking lot and a very loud part of America,
but I have some hope that will reduce in the future.
Your ideas are weighing down America's progress.
Understand that I think that America's success is humanities succes.
America's failure will be failure for humanity. I wish I could let you fail.
I wouldn't care about you, if I wouldn't care about humanity.
It's your freedom to destroy yourself, but your freedom ends,
were mine begins.
America used to talk about 'tomorrow' a lot;
- the city of tomorrow
- the house of tomorrow
- the farms of tomorrow
- the public transport of tomorrow
- the energy of tomorrow
Are you old enough to remember that? Phart and dgraff sure are.
Now, you're all determined to go back to the 1950's. Sure, some things
were better back then, but mostly everything was just more simple.
Simple doesn't work anymore, because our problems are difficult now.
Denying that doesn't work, only progress can save America and the world.
As divided as this country is now over unimportant things, I doubt it would survive another 9-11 or Pearl Harbor without going bankrupt and into full civil war.
--------------------------------------- added after 9 minutes
tescan, sometimes people outside the box can tell more about what is going on inside the box because they can see it from different angles. Problem is the interpretations of what they see!.
to the government to corrupt politicians serving billionaires.
THEY are LIVING that future, but YOU are not.
What changes were made, risking you speaking Chinese or Arabic?
What do you need to revert back to, to prevent that, and how?
People vote for other reasons for Republicans over Democrats, then you.
When people have just 2 choices, they can either not vote at all or vote for the least bad one, in their opinion.
About 30% of the country votes for Republicans, because they share
your ideas, the rest have many other motivations, like being rich and desiring lower taxes and no expenses for poor people, or just not being informed on politics.
The Republicans now have to act like they care about climate change, because there is a growing group of their voters who do think climate change is real and important. Haven't you noticed?
like your life depends on it. (But it's really your death)
I have voted for a couple democrats over the years,but not many
Is it a weakness to not blindly support any horrible politician,
just because of party loyalty?
Do you understand your democratic duty as a citizen?
He has since passed away.
I understand that you mostly vote for Republicans, because you really
support all their conservative, right-wing ideas of serve the rich
and don't ask for any freedoms, besides working and owning guns.
I don't understand it, I think it's delusional, but you're fully consistent.
Your party loyalty only shows up in who you trust to tell the truth.
You accept every single lie from right-wing media and Republicans
and you reject everything the other side says, and no evidence
can ever change your mind.
Republicans banned that negotiation and voted against re-introducing it. It starts very small, because Democrats have corporatists in their party too, but every year a new group of pharmaceutical get added to the negotiation list.
That plan will lower the price of the blood-thinners you need.
When Trump took office, he had one talk with big pharma.
Everything he promised his voters went out the door that day.
After that, he kept promising, but he delivered NOTHING.
Back up you claim that Democrats are the reason social security is fucked up, insurance is fucked up and etc. They have been telling you "Social security isn't maintainable!" for years, to get your support to cut, gut and destroy it. THEY ARE LYING! They want to switch you to a system where everyone has to put in their own money in some private funds (that's going to screw you 100% sure) and then hopefully there is some money for retirement at the end. And when they screw people or they don't have any money to put aside, people will work until they die.
Do you think your country is so poor that it cannot afford retirement?
Why do you think Republicans want 'anything good' for social security?
Give me some things you consider 'anything good' that Republicans passed laws for, providing working people with income they can survive on, afford them a house they rent or buy, send their kids to school on, provided infrastructure to go to their jobs on, provided them healthcare with when they get sick or have an accident, get help when they get fired, get help when they get crippled, or have a decent retirement.
Did the do anything besides TALK about immigrants and transgenders and take away abortion from people who do not agree with you on that?
Citizens that earn their money shouldn't HAVE to pay into social security if they can prove their investments are making more interest income. That is the whole idea, the government was supposed to earn money with social security funds but then decided to throw it in the pot with the rest of the taxes and just divy out each persons money and that is why the system is fucked
If you get fired from a job,why should the government help?
Hell you musta fucked up or you would still be working.
Are you talking about Myth 4?
only registered users can see external links
People get fired from their jobs all the time, because of employee cutbacks. Companies fail all the time. The economy goes up and down. Do you think unemployment is low now, because workers are doing better and when unemployment is high, workers are doing worse? That's the strangest economical hypothesis I've ever heard. You just had millions of people fired due to the Covid crisis. How about the 2007–2008 financial crisis? That was executives fucking up and people paying the price. But the government helped the fuckups with trillions of dollars and let the people rot or give them a one time check, not worth a fraction of what the wealthy raked in.
So be consistent, why should the government help the wealthy?
They surely fucked up, but got all the help they asked for.
only registered users can see external links
In this backwards country in Texas, in 1997, the uneducated super Conservative, ultra religious, ignorant people decided that
"Hello" is a bad word
Because (listen to that!) It detives from the word hell.
So the idiots decided to
Replace it by the word "heaveno"
You'd call the courthouse there and they'd reply
"Heaveno, how may I help you?"
I knew that Michael Obama was a man 16 years ago and that might’ve changed the whole outcome of the election Obama may have flopped and we would have been stuck with Hillary Clinton
only registered users can see external links
Really! Just look at this picture of Kimberly Guilfoyle:
only registered users can see external links
And then of this picture of Caitlyn Jenner:
only registered users can see external links
Switch back and forth, between their pictures.
And then tell me that Kimberly Guilfoyle isn't a transgender.
New Comment Go to top