Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3293
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

    So I see this narrative a lot. These libtard cities with their homeless problems and how that is a sign of failed liberalism. Please explain how liberalism is the cause of homelessness. I’m seriously interested in this answer. 

    Clearly it’s because they do not champion the brilliant and wonderful hypothesis of trickle down economics. If those cities would just cut rich people’s taxes, the poor would be able to get jobs!!!

    • Like 4
  2. To be fair to Laura Ingraham and the producers of her show, that graphic was only half bullshit. She usually bats a much higher percentage: those accounts were, as it says, “on social media.”

  3. 1 hour ago, Lobo said:

    To be fair, I think some of the pushback on the Obama nomination was that he was leaving office once and for all, and with Trump...there's a chance he could be re-elected (though, I hope not).  historically, which nobody gives a shit about these days, the waining days of the first term of a President are treated differently than the waining days of the second term of a President.  Unless you are a power-monger like FDR and wipe your ass with the Constitution.  Or have someone else wipe it for you, you fake-Monarchical rolling cumrag.  

    That said, maybe we'll get lucky and have Breyer and Trump die together Thelma & Louise style later this year.

    No, this has to do with the fact that the GOP is the most destructive and hypocritical organization known to fucking man.

    These idiots cited the so-called “Biden Rule” in a lame-assed, desperate attempt to justify their shafting of Garland.

    For one thing, there is no “Biden Rule.” That simply doesn’t exist. It’s just a very out-of-context quote mining that the GOP found buried in the archives of Willie Horton and burning the flag.

    For another, the “Rule” they refer to was a speech he gave in the weeks leading up to GHWB’s re-election bid, so clearly the GOP fucking Merrick Garland had nothing to do with Obama leaving.

    Further, what Biden actually said was that GHWB should hold off nominating a justice to the SCOTUS until after the election (should a vacancy come up), and it was due to the very toxic environment over the subject as this was in the wake of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas’ nominations.

    But far from the context of the political environment, and far apart from what Biden had to say, notice what he did not say. He did not say that Bush should hold off a hypothetical nomination were he to lose the election; just that he should hold off until after the election had concluded. That’s a huge difference.

    There are no lines in between which one could read Joe Biden suggesting that any hypothetical Bush nominations would be stalled to the point of not even having a fucking hearing had a vacancy come up around the time Clinton won the 1992 general election, so Mitch McConnell is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything he said to even imply the contrary. He’s completely full of shit, and this unwitting admission of vulgar hypocrisy on his part is only a surprise in one regard: he was actually being honest for a split second.

    • Like 7
  4. 2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

    Which propaganda rag is that?

    The one that uses that “fair and balanced” tag line to qualify their useless drivel

  5. 1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

    Where's your video of Palestinians shooting rockets into Israel? 

    Or are you not "fair and balanced"?

    Hideously argued non sequitur aside, it’s funny that you’re using a slogan of a propaganda rag when you refer to those projectiles as “rockets.”

  6. 7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    regardless I bet trump would agree that Kim or Putin would make a better president than Bidan.

    Considering his sole criteria for what makes a good president is whether or not the individual in question likes him, I'm sure you're right.

  7. 8 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

    By the way it is very ironic that the partisan media who are parroting the DNC's calls of Constitutional crisis are eager and willing to ignore every part of the Constitution in order to get rid of Trump.  

    What parts are they ignoring?

  8. 8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


    We were told that he wouldn’t get us involved in foreign wars and shenanigans. That was actually something the Trumpkins, including in this community, pitched.

    Not only that, I never saw anyone make the claim that trump was the first president to do this. Almost seems like a strawman argument. Wouldn’t you know who won the pony?

  9. 11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    The Saudis know how easy it is to manipulate Trump. And Trump is completely out of his element. He doesn't know that posturing and positioning for war can easily lead to actual war. And he's got a National Security Advisor who really wants war. If the U.S. takes any military action against Iran and Trump sees a bump in his approval ratings, look out. 

    If he would get even the slightest bump for such a thing, we officially live in a lunatic nation

  10. 19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    I actually think you're probably right.....but that's why my joke about Costa Rica isn't entirely a joke (well, it probably won't be Costa Rica). 

    I'd love to see that discussion.

    Trump: "Let's attack Costa Rica!"

    Some Cabinet member (SCM): "Why?"

    Trump: "Why not???"

    SCM: "Well they have no military whatsoever, so we can't sell the idea that they're a threat to us. I mean we stretched it with Grenada, Vietnam, Iran, etc but at least they had armed forces."

    Trump: "I don't understand the difference"

    SCM: "Sir, if we attack Iran, for example, we could at least say that they were threatening us with a military attack...because they have a military..."

    Trump: "And?"

    SCM: "Well CR has no military. Who can we say is threatening us to the public?"

    Trump: "Some Puerto Rican guy!!!!"

    SCM: "Sir, that's a different place and it's an American territory."

    Trump: "Nuh uh, Puerto Rico is a Mexican country"

    SCM: [handing Trump a set of car keys] "Sir, play with these for a while."

    • Like 1
  11. 11 hours ago, slorch said:

    I do.

    That remains to be seen.

    11 hours ago, slorch said:

    It's amazing how it's an "ole slorch disagrees with us on this particular point, so he opposes everything."

    In this example, who is "us?"

    11 hours ago, slorch said:

    Not true at all.  i just disagree on some of the proposed solutions.

    Such as, and on what grounds?

  12. 12 minutes ago, slorch said:

    Ignore people getting murdered...

     

    makes perfect sense.  Sorry to intrude on the massacre...850k strong, bro.  Every year.

     

    Must be such a disappointment with fewer and fewer women celebrating their( alleged) liberty each year now...

    If you cared that much about abortion, you would care about the reasons that women undergo them and you’d support relevant social policy changes that would mitigate those reasons.

    • Like 2
  13. 21 hours ago, GRHorn said:

    Our population as a whole has a rising level of war weariness. That includes a lot of people on the right. That is what I was referring to. 

    Ragheads? Cmon man. No one here has posted anything close to that, that I have seen. Clean up your language.

    They don't have to. Don't be such a literalist.

  14. On 5/14/2019 at 11:30 AM, bad_teammate said:

    So could Hillary. But she didn't.

    Why didn't she?

    It hurts the feelers of the diehard D's to hear/read, but the truth is that with Hillary, as with Biden, the race isn't some paradigmatic conservative vs. liberal clash, whether you're looking at it from a factual/reality standpoint or from the far more important standpoint of voter perception. With either of them vs. Trump, it's correctly seen as Trump vs. Trump Lite. Outside of immense personal greed, I cannot for the life of me understand why the DNC is so hellbent on pushing candidates like this especially when the most popular political figure in the fucking country is running to be their nominee. 

  15. 8 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

    Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the GOP and evangelicals is cancer, got it.

    They’re obvious hypocrites. There’s no doubt about that. His point was that Twitter is not the best way to provide evidence of that. And he’s correct; it’s not the best way to provide evidence of that. There are plenty of other more credible avenues that’ll illustrate that point, probably even more strongly.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...