This ain't about you, selfish prick. Your mindset is exactly what's wrong with our country. You should run for office, you're a natural.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
This ain't about you, selfish prick. Your mindset is exactly what's wrong with our country. You should run for office, you're a natural.
I've got no desire for that.
Can you explain what about my mindset is so wrong? I take care of myself and don't ask or need for anyone else to do it for me. Seems that's exactly the attitude more of us should have.
OMG. Fine. Don't Make me take care of others either when I need to take care of myself and my family.
I'm not going to go back and look because I don't care at this point, but are you supporting Obamacare????????¿
Really? WTF did I pay for the last 7 years?
I. Sorry I'm done tonight, wanna watch the end of the warriors game.
Not buying it. Trump put superhuman effort into that campaign. No one does that unless they want to win.
The arrogance is unbelievable.
Lol false.
Should be removed immediately. Every judge takes an oath to uphold the law. This is right up there with the judge who let the illegal out the back.
Remember what happened when he got involved in the brexit vote?
I see this mischaracterization way too often. He was a real estate tycoon who also had a tv show. Its crazy enough as is. No need to stretch the truth.
Really? Well, let's see here...
-That haircut is a radio tower broadcasting 100,000 watts of douche...
-That shirt is too tight b/c he's trying to 'look' swoll at the expense of comfort and reasonable attire, another D-bag giveaway
-The shitty, spotty, patchy beard does nothing more than express that facial hair is the manliest thing about him. This is corroborated by his, no doubt, woman-like hands
-You likely have anywhere from 1/5 to 1/10th of your total annual income invested in watches, glasses, clothing, fake tan, body waxing and tattoos... demonstrating 1) lack of game as you need all that shit to present as something you are not, 2) you either have no financial acumen or your ego drives your common sense..
-The obligatory sleeve tattoo. What an original rebel...
So, given all this info you've chosen to broadcast about yourself, what, exactly, do you offer a woman of any level of quality? Most folks can see wht you're all about from a mile away. No woman wants another child to raise... maybe use that 2.5 hours every morning while you primp to reflect on personal choices.
Be a ****ing man, man. Chicks dig exactly THAT.
That's easy. Lonely dudes, cut your penis off and join the revolution.
Baltimore is now asking for federal help, smgdh.
Yeah, I wish I had $60 MILLION to waste on a ruse.
Will copkilla pop in to comment on the jobs report? nah...
Saw 11 old people dead on the side of the road this morning while taking the kids to school. Kinda sad.
Saw 11 old people dead on the side of the road this morning while taking the kids to school. Kinda sad.
+ ![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D): No Evidence of Russian Collusion in Trump Campaign.
Certain heads should begin exploding in 5... 4... 3...
Certain heads should begin exploding in 5... 4... 3...
Why? Since when is truth relevant to a good narrative in that bubble?
Was said all throughout the campaign that the UE number was much higher, but millions simply fell off because they stopped looking for a job. Republicans cannot all of the sudden say UE is that low if you voted Trump. We were either duped or the number is much higher than 4.4%.
As for what Howard Stern said, he was saying this back when Trump first ran. Thought he was doing it as a PR stunt and felt Trump thought he would do ok for awhile and then get out but as he started to realize he had a shot he went all in as he does with everything he does. No doubt I am sure he has moments he wishes he had his old life back, but also think the power of the position and serving his country "Trumps" everything else.
And how much time and money was wasted on something the rest of us already knew?
I'm guess that if this info was even slightly misleading, MSM and Twitter would be ALL over it. They never miss an opportunity like this...
Hell, whn job growth missed expected growth by 4% last month, they had GD field day with that info... Lobbing some falsehoods up for the dems isn't exactly the smart play here, I'd think.
- Labor force participation down slightly, which is disappointing
- AMERICA IS A BATTLEGROUND IM AFRAID TO GO OUT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT aka 2% of US counties account for 51% of murders and 54% of counties had zero murders. Even the murders in those 2% are HIGHLY concentrated; as in even more concentrated than neighborhood level. Most murders can be pinned down to a particular side of a street or corner.
Even more reason to tell gun grabbers to sit and spin. Most of America is at least as safe as any European fantasy land they want to compare us to; even our largest cities, save a couple city blocks. Also more reason to tell cops who want to pretend they are in Afghanistan to shove it. No, Barney Fife, you don't need a tank and a no knockout raid with flashbangs to subdue the 90lb woman who might have a gram of weed at her house. You're a cop in nowhere Nebraska, you're not going to get shot and there isn't a war going on against you
- AMERICA IS A BATTLEGROUND IM AFRAID TO GO OUT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT aka 2% of US counties account for 51% of murders and 54% of counties had zero murders. Even the murders in those 2% are HIGHLY concentrated; as in even more concentrated than neighborhood level. Most murders can be pinned down to a particular side of a street or corner.
Even more reason to tell gun grabbers to sit and spin. Most of America is at least as safe as any European fantasy land they want to compare us to; even our largest cities, save a couple city blocks. Also more reason to tell cops who want to pretend they are in Afghanistan to shove it. No, Barney Fife, you don't need a tank and a no knockout raid with flashbangs to subdue the 90lb woman who might have a gram of weed at her house. You're a cop in nowhere Nebraska, you're not going to get shot and there isn't a war going on against you
This may be a bit dated, as I think I saw it first last week... but the message is on point and the reactions are priceless...
Has nothing with media labels, it's the labels that the groups give to themselves and with whom they align and who aligns with them.
Should have never fired Det. Jimmy McNulty.
While his methods were sketchy, and a bit illegal, he always got his target.
So because Beshear disagreed with most Democrats on same-sex that should somehow disqualify him from responding for Democrats to the POTUS State of the Union address? Was same-sex marriage a topic in the SOTU address?
I'm trying to understand why that would be important?
If the new rules are that only those who are in 100% lock-step agreement with their respective political party majorities can represent said political party...you're going to have a pretty small selection of candidates to ever do so for either side.
Add this to the list of things of why Trump won.
He was the only candidate to publicly call out BLM and this movement, labelling them exactly what they are; criminals and lawlessness.
He was also the only candidate who had the balls to back the men and women in law enforcement, not afraid of the backlash from the SJWs.
“Nearly every police official interviewed agreed that for the first time, law enforcement not only felt that their national political leaders [publicly] stood against them, but also that the politicians’ words and actions signified that disrespect to law enforcement was acceptable in the aftermath of the Brown shooting,” the study said.
Last edited:
The act or support of extending rights/liberty to those without those rights is a liberal, progressive action. Abolition was a federalist cause meaning they were looking to the federal government to take action to end slavery in all states.
Then, simply look at the definitions of the words...
CONSERVATIVE - con·serv·a·tive
–adjective
From the Latin servare - meaning "keep, preserve."
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
–noun: a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
Slavery was the existing condition...
LIBERAL - lib·er·al
–adjective
From the Latin liberalis - meaning "suitable for a freeman."
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun:. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
What are the odds fuzz has any idea about the political beliefs of 19th century Americans? Defining liberal and conservative politically by their standard definitions is a pretty good clue.
Let's not tell him about progressivism and eugenics in the early 20th century. It would ruin his little bubble he's created
Let's not tell him about progressivism and eugenics in the early 20th century. It would ruin his little bubble he's created
- Let's say Bernie Sanders got a bill passed to tax the rich at 100% of earnings over X amount
- 5 years later Republicans try to repeal it and Bernie tries to keep it on the books
*magic dictionary work*
- BERNIE IS A CONSERVATIVE!
I mean, he literally wants to conserve the current law, so he is automatically conservative. Wow, thanks fuzz, your idiotic ramblings sure are useful
- 5 years later Republicans try to repeal it and Bernie tries to keep it on the books
*magic dictionary work*
- BERNIE IS A CONSERVATIVE!
I mean, he literally wants to conserve the current law, so he is automatically conservative. Wow, thanks fuzz, your idiotic ramblings sure are useful
Hillary is launching her own "resistance" Super PAC, and will be supporting 2018 Democrat candidates and funding resistance organizations.
In some cases that is true, but even when it is, it still doesn't make them conservative. For example, I am a Christian. Many label the religious right as conservative. However, some are and some are not. For example, If your religious views dictate what you think should be legal and illegal, and not the constitution, then you are not conservative. But the media consistently labels all people associated with the religious right as conservative. Those people may even identify that way themselves. However, if you don't support the preservation of the Constitution and its concepts of individual liberty, then you cannot truly be conservative, irrespective of what you think about yourself and how the media labels you..
By the way, libertarians are for most part conservative.
It wasnt the issue. But just a microcosm of what made Beshear a train wreck of a choice for that response. It turned out about like it should have.
The other point was the hypocrisy of the msm for never mentioning this fact. If it were the gop, wed known it.
Ok this makes more sense. I could clearly tell she was thrusting herself back on the political stage. I thought initially it was to make another run. Instead, its a way to make more money off politics.
Basically a reworking of their foundation. Now theyll be selling access again, this time it will be donations in return for favors. Makes perfect sense for her. They have all the shady connections to shady megadonors.
Have the clintons made a dime of money other than profiting from politics?
So by your example, the Confederate States that chose to seek their Independence from the United States were also Liberals?
How is what the Confederates did any different than what the colonies did against England?
You're cherry picking items from the past and then putting them in todays settings, when in fact you have no idea what the mood was then.
I could say liberals killed JFK, Oswald was a communist sympathizer, loved the USSR. Todays young liberals gladly carry the USSR flag in rallies. Now, no one makes that comparison because it's ignorant, just as your comparison is.
Whatever the Democrats accuse Republicans of being is exactly what the Dems end up doing, it's ridiculous.
Claim Trump is a threat to democracy because he won't essentially concede defeat before the election, then they go all out to delegitimize Trump.
Claim Reps are racist, then go all out to isolate races and make it seem that evil whitey elected Trump.
Claim Reps are misogynist then go all out to drive a wedge through the sexes.
They're main weapon for elections is division, all the while talking about uniting.
One other point, consistent with what I have been saying, the war on drugs is not a conservative approach to the problem. The concepts of individual liberty found in the Constitution would suggest that drugs should be legal and only behavior that violates the liberty of another human being should be illegal. So the war on drugs in my mind is not consistent with the concepts in the Constitution. If they were pushed by so called conservatives, then in my opinion, they were wrong. Can you say the same about the social programs that forcibly take money from one individual and give it to another, or about many of the other government regulations I mentioned? If not, then I don't see how you can claim liberalism is still focused on liberty and not collectivism.
NYT Cheers the Rise of Censorship Algorithms
Just days after sporting First Amendment pins at the White House Correspondents Dinner – to celebrate freedom of the press – the mainstream U.S. media is back to celebrating a very different idea: how to use algorithms to purge the Internet of what is deemed “fake news,” i.e. what the mainstream judges to be “misinformation.”
The New York Times, one of the top promoters of this new Orwellian model for censorship, devoted two-thirds of a page in its Tuesday editions to a laudatory piece about high-tech entrepreneurs refining artificial intelligence that can hunt down and eradicate supposedly “fake news.”
To justify this draconian strategy, the Times cited only a “fake news” report claiming that the French establishment’s preferred presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron had received funding from Saudi Arabia, a bogus story published by a Web site that mimicked the appearance of the newspaper Le Soir and was traced back to a Delaware phone number.
Yet, while such intentionally fabricated articles as well as baseless conspiracy theories are a bane of the Internet – and do deserve hearty condemnation – the Times gives no thought to the potential downside of having a select group of mainstream journalistic entities feeding their judgment about what is true and what is not into some algorithms that would then scrub the Internet of contrary items.
Since the Times is a member of the Google-funded First Draft Coalition – along with other mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post and the pro-NATO propaganda site Bellingcat – this idea of eliminating information that counters what the group asserts is true may seem quite appealing to the Times and the other insiders. After all, it might seem cool to have some high-tech tool that silences your critics automatically?
But you don’t need a huge amount of imagination to see how this combination of mainstream groupthink and artificial intelligence could create an Orwellian future in which only one side of a story gets told and the other side simply disappears from view.
Just days after sporting First Amendment pins at the White House Correspondents Dinner – to celebrate freedom of the press – the mainstream U.S. media is back to celebrating a very different idea: how to use algorithms to purge the Internet of what is deemed “fake news,” i.e. what the mainstream judges to be “misinformation.”
The New York Times, one of the top promoters of this new Orwellian model for censorship, devoted two-thirds of a page in its Tuesday editions to a laudatory piece about high-tech entrepreneurs refining artificial intelligence that can hunt down and eradicate supposedly “fake news.”
To justify this draconian strategy, the Times cited only a “fake news” report claiming that the French establishment’s preferred presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron had received funding from Saudi Arabia, a bogus story published by a Web site that mimicked the appearance of the newspaper Le Soir and was traced back to a Delaware phone number.
Yet, while such intentionally fabricated articles as well as baseless conspiracy theories are a bane of the Internet – and do deserve hearty condemnation – the Times gives no thought to the potential downside of having a select group of mainstream journalistic entities feeding their judgment about what is true and what is not into some algorithms that would then scrub the Internet of contrary items.
Since the Times is a member of the Google-funded First Draft Coalition – along with other mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post and the pro-NATO propaganda site Bellingcat – this idea of eliminating information that counters what the group asserts is true may seem quite appealing to the Times and the other insiders. After all, it might seem cool to have some high-tech tool that silences your critics automatically?
But you don’t need a huge amount of imagination to see how this combination of mainstream groupthink and artificial intelligence could create an Orwellian future in which only one side of a story gets told and the other side simply disappears from view.
Lol.
Fuzz... of all people... trying to tell us about political groups and their philosophies.
I've had my laugh for the day- thanks Fuzz!
Fuzz... of all people... trying to tell us about political groups and their philosophies.
I've had my laugh for the day- thanks Fuzz!
