pbarosso Posted July 31, 2016 #151 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 minute ago, ChaosRose said: This one's a beauty, too... we need to make a special island for people who are emotional based thinkers (liberals) Such "American" values. Can you show me in the Constitution where you found that one? well criminals are put in jail you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #152 Share Posted July 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, pbarosso said: it would not be systematic extermination. it would be "hey americans, you go pick the crops and do other jobs or you wil starve to death" and watch how many people get to work. You're assuming that people working full time are not in poverty. That's not true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #153 Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, pbarosso said: well criminals are put in jail you know It's not a crime to have different opinions than you do. Yet. Edited July 31, 2016 by ChaosRose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted July 31, 2016 #154 Share Posted July 31, 2016 oh no im not. poverty is necessary to create struggle. struggle makes people rise to the occasion and get better. 1 minute ago, ChaosRose said: You're assuming that people working full time are not in poverty. That's not true. poverty is necessary to grow and learn how not to be in it. if people cant figure that out by themselves then there is no hope. they will statistically pass it on their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted July 31, 2016 #155 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Do you think Trump is the best candidate for social Darwinism then? Getting rid of programs like social security/disability, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. would save the US a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted July 31, 2016 #156 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 minute ago, ChaosRose said: It's not a crime to have different opinions than you do. Yet. heard of subversion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted July 31, 2016 #157 Share Posted July 31, 2016 subversion: a crime; Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #158 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Just now, pbarosso said: heard of subversion? I've heard of the Constitution. Have you read it? Maybe you should also borrow that copy after Trump's done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted July 31, 2016 #159 Share Posted July 31, 2016 this is what is and has been happening to our western civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #160 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Gromdor said: Do you think Trump is the best candidate for social Darwinism then? Getting rid of programs like social security/disability, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. would save the US a lot of money. That sure seems like his plan, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #161 Share Posted July 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, pbarosso said: subversion: a crime; Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed. It is not a crime of subversion to champion equal rights and try to help those less fortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #162 Share Posted July 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, pbarosso said: oh no im not. poverty is necessary to create struggle. struggle makes people rise to the occasion and get better. poverty is necessary to grow and learn how not to be in it. if people cant figure that out by themselves then there is no hope. they will statistically pass it on their children. Oh...and do I detect a hint of eugenics as well? Way to show your true colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted July 31, 2016 #163 Share Posted July 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, ChaosRose said: It is not a crime of subversion to champion equal rights and try to help those less fortunate. you cant have a perfect society. equal rights is a fake issue created by leftists in order to control everyone and keep them in power. helping those less fortunate does not mean giving stuff away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted July 31, 2016 #164 Share Posted July 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said: Oh...and do I detect a hint of eugenics as well? Way to show your true colors. look, you seem to not understand how the world works until then, i have a kitchen floor to tile. i taught myself to tile. using my brains and "struggle" i remodeled the entire kitchen using "struggle". so i dont feel sorry for anyone except children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #165 Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, pbarosso said: you cant have a perfect society. equal rights is a fake issue created by leftists in order to control everyone and keep them in power. helping those less fortunate does not mean giving stuff away. There's no such thing as a perfect society, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make it better. There is something wrong with sitting on a pile of gold and saying to the rest of America that making not even enough to eat (minimum wage folks often have to be on food stamps to do that) is too much money. Edited July 31, 2016 by ChaosRose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplybill Posted July 31, 2016 #166 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Leonardo said: I don't think that can happen by changing Presidents. When you say "leaders" I know you are not referring to just one person, but by arguing that Trump is potentially a "better choice" for the Presidency that is what your argument will be perceived as. And I do not think that characterisation of Trump as "non-PC" is accurate. It's not that he's "non-PC", it's that he is a narcissistic buffoon lacking in empathy that makes him say the things he says. I don't doubt his business cunning, so I'm not suggesting he is without intelligence, but to characterise him as "non-PC" is to grant him a greater level of empathy than I suspect he deserves. Don't take this as an argument in favour of Clinton, because her faults - though different to Trump's - are no less serious. All I am saying is that pinning one's hopes on Trump because of the appearance he has greater "business sense" is, imo, a false hope. I want to explain what I see as the difference between a fearful hope and a false hope. As with our current President, we won't know if our hopes were false until the winning candidate is tested in battle, and his/her true colors are made obvious. During the previous two elections, President Obama was elevated by the media to 'Messiah' status; a quick look at current headlines (and current UM topics) show that those messianic hopes were proven false. I'm not happy with either of the two leading candidates, though I will give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt until his political savvy is tested by fire. Ms. Clinton, in my opinion, showed her true colors when she abandoned our ambassador in Libya, and then blamed it on YouTube; Ms. Clinton would be a poor Commander-in-Chief for our military. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #167 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 minute ago, pbarosso said: look, you seem to not understand how the world works until then, i have a kitchen floor to tile. i taught myself to tile. using my brains and "struggle" i remodeled the entire kitchen using "struggle". so i dont feel sorry for anyone except children. Lots of people are struggling and working hard. People born into wealth have the clear advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted July 31, 2016 #168 Share Posted July 31, 2016 20 minutes ago, pbarosso said: well criminals are put in jail you know I wonder if you'd have blasphemers decapitated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted July 31, 2016 #169 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Just now, Rlyeh said: I wonder if you'd have blasphemers decapitated. Interesting thought. I don't think they would be decapitated. Maybe just put on that island with people like me...the free thinkers...and starved to death, slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted July 31, 2016 #170 Share Posted July 31, 2016 10 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said: Bush started the fire. No, he didn't. Do you remember what actually happened on the 11th of September, you know, before Bush's run as POTUS was barely out of the starting gate? Bush wasn't flying those aircraft. And if you want to lay blame on a POTUS for that, try Clinton the First...he had several chances to apprehend Osama before any of this happened, and decided that using his power as POTUS to chase skirts was much more important than the well-being of this country. 10 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said: Obama poured gasoline on it. Clinton will play the fiddle while America burns. It almost seems like a planned and prepared conflagration to make our scorched earth more amenable to globalism. He did certainly pour gasoline on it, but it has existed for centuries. Shrillary won't be content to watch this country burn, she wants an active hand in making sure of it, and then salting the earth afterwards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted July 31, 2016 #171 Share Posted July 31, 2016 14 minutes ago, simplybill said: I want to explain what I see as the difference between a fearful hope and a false hope. As with our current President, we won't know if our hopes were false until the winning candidate is tested in battle, and his/her true colors are made obvious. During the previous two elections, President Obama was elevated by the media to 'Messiah' status; a quick look at current headlines (and current UM topics) show that those messianic hopes were proven false. I'm not happy with either of the two leading candidates, though I will give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt until his political savvy is tested by fire. Ms. Clinton, in my opinion, showed her true colors when she abandoned our ambassador in Libya, and then blamed it on YouTube; Ms. Clinton would be a poor Commander-in-Chief for our military. Are you suggesting that "political savvy" hasn't been tested by the nomination campaign he has just waged? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted July 31, 2016 #172 Share Posted July 31, 2016 25 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said: No, he didn't. Do you remember what actually happened on the 11th of September, you know, before Bush's run as POTUS was barely out of the starting gate? Bush wasn't flying those aircraft. And if you want to lay blame on a POTUS for that, try Clinton the First...he had several chances to apprehend Osama before any of this happened, and decided that using his power as POTUS to chase skirts was much more important than the well-being of this country. He did certainly pour gasoline on it, but it has existed for centuries. Shrillary won't be content to watch this country burn, she wants an active hand in making sure of it, and then salting the earth afterwards. I think he might be referring to Bush #1 and the Soviet War in Afghanistan where we supported the Mujahedeen and Osama Bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplybill Posted July 31, 2016 #173 Share Posted July 31, 2016 9 minutes ago, Leonardo said: Are you suggesting that "political savvy" hasn't been tested by the nomination campaign he has just waged? Absolutely. A campaign is no different than the dating ritual before marriage: you don't see the real person until after the vows. Everything we've seen up to this point is the media's analysis of Mr. Trump's personality. He is still a political unknown. Ms. Clinton has been in politics her entire adult life. We know what she's made of. Here in the States, we have regional accents, as well as regional personalities. IMO, Mr. Trump's personality is a mix of South Chicago Cubs fan and New Jersey dock worker. I'm fine with that. I'm tired of the phony sophistication worn by American politicians. I'm not happy with either of our two leading candidates, but I know for certain that one of them will be our next president. I'm ready for someone who's comfortable in his own skin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted July 31, 2016 #174 Share Posted July 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, simplybill said: Absolutely. A campaign is no different than the dating ritual before marriage: you don't see the real person until after the vows. Everything we've seen up to this point is the media's analysis of Mr. Trump's personality. He is still a political unknown. Ms. Clinton has been in politics her entire adult life. We know what she's made of. Here in the States, we have regional accents, as well as regional personalities. IMO, Mr. Trump's personality is a mix of South Chicago Cubs fan and New Jersey dock worker. I'm fine with that. I'm tired of the phony sophistication worn by American politicians. I'm not happy with either of our two leading candidates, but I know for certain that one of them will be our next president. I'm ready for someone who's comfortable in his own skin. Wherein, if the person shows to be an ar$e during the courtship, only an idiot would marry said person... unless a masochist or befits that classification itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefers Posted July 31, 2016 #175 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, pbarosso said: there is such a thing as stable society. abortion, free money for births (welfare), godlessness, destruction of family values, do not count as stable society. you dont see this? So basically you're against freedom. You forbid people from having an abortion, the freedom to choose religion or marry whoever they want. And free money for having children, meh, it has good and bad sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now