Assholes's Speech - Page 27

And you are starting to sound like Jeremiah Wright. Do you even like white people? It sounds like you don't.

Lol so now it's Obama that has offended you? Why are you trying so hard to equate someone else to offenses that people have felt from Trump with racial insensitivity. So you know what Obama really believes now? Obama denounced the statement. How long did it take Trump to denounce David Duke. He took a long time to denounce the anti Semitic things that were happening. If you want to go do that road, just assuming you know how some really feels. I'm going to start saying I know that Trump really is the racist, sexual harassing, anti Semitic, misogynistic guy who likes likes being pissed on. So yeah please stop trying to make parallel examples for you to be offended in a way to less what Trump has done that were racially offensive. You sound like the person with no kids telling the parent they know how they feel because they have a dog that's like a son to you. It's not the same. Originally Posted by Milly23

And you are starting to sound like Jeremiah Wright. Do you even like white people? It sounds like you don't. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Oh I do? How do I sound like Wright? Where did I say anything about white people? I actually said things that people who are white say about Trump. But yes I don't discriminate. I have friends who are white, Asian, Indian, of all religions. Funny thing is majority of my of my friend are white. Nice try though. Sounds like you didn't like me assuming things about Trump. But it's ok for you to assume things.

No, it's not alright to assume things. I admit I do sometimes but I try not to do so.

Oh I do? How do I sound like Wright? Where did I say anything about white people? I actually said things that people who are white say about Trump. But yes I don't discriminate. I have friends who are white, Asian, Indian, of all religions. Funny thing is majority of my of my friend are white. Nice try though. Sounds like you didn't like me assuming things about Trump. But it's ok for you to assume things. Originally Posted by Milly23

No, it's not alright to assume things. I admit I do sometimes but I try not to do so. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

No it's not. And that's all I was getting out when saying what I could assume of Trump. You assume you know what Obama thinks. You don't. He denounced the guy and left then church. Assuming he believed something because you feel a way, that's not productive.

Yes, I use to train leasing agents and "assuming" something was at the top of my no-no list. What is that saying - about making an ass out of myself if I assume or something like that.

No it's not. And that's all I was getting out when saying what I could assume of Trump. You assume you know what Obama thinks. You don't. He denounced the guy and left then church. Assuming he believed something because you feel a way, that's not productive. Originally Posted by Milly23

Yes, I use to train leasing agents and "assuming" something was at the top of my no-no list. What is that saying - about making an ass out of myself if I assume or something like that. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

How many of you assumed Obama was a Muslim because of his name (or because of what twisted agenda-based assfucks told you to believe) ?

When people are outraged that Trump took so long to (weakly) denounce David Duke, it was not based on assumption. The things reasonable people object about Trump are mostly based on in-your-face observation and fact, not assumptions.

Wow, how many of you - this is why we have a hard time in America to have a decent dialog with each other- you are separating a segment of America that voted for the Trump. You also like to belittle other people's opinion.

How many of you assumed Obama was a Muslim because of his name (or because of what twisted agenda-based assfucks told you to believe) ? Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

When a person has an Arabic/Muslim name, went to Muslim schools as a child, was registered in the Islamic country of his residence as a Muslim (Indonesia) had parents who were Muslim, and then stated as an adult in a Presidential campaign that he was a Muslim....

Gee someone might "assume" that he's a Muslim.

Incidentally when a person is a Muslim he cannot cease to be a Muslim or join a different faith without becoming an apostate, which is punishable by death, to wit: a sword lopping off their head.

So if you claim that Obama somehow and magically was no longer a Muslim when the documentation from governments and institutions says he was, then you are claiming he was an apostate, which is NOT POSSIBLE given that he recently appeared in Muslim countries unmolested.

After taking office in 2009 his earliest trips were to a series of Muslim countries. Remember that? While there he met with various Muslim authorities and assured them in private that he never left the faith and that he was NOT an apostate and that they therefore had no grounds for issuance of any fatwas or rulings calling for his assassination.

Did you forget about that trip?

I'm still pissed at Republicans, and I am a registered Republican, for not voting on Garland to replace Scalia. Simply no justification for that. Just bring it to a vote. If Garland is rejected, fine. But to not vote was a disgrace. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I would agree with you, speedy, except for the Biden Rule. And the Schumer Rule. And the Reid Rule.

All 3 of those Democrats are on videotape stating as a matter of policy and principle the Senate should NOT consider any Supreme Court nominee during the last 12-18 months of a Republican President's term. You can look those videos up on youtube.

So it's utterly untrue to say there was "no justification" for what the Republicans did to Garland. In fact, they specifically justified waiting until after the November election by pointing to the public statements of Biden, Schumer and Reid!

The Dems made their bed, but didn't want to sleep in it! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

I know you were trying to show you understood. But please don't compare the two. That's so bad. I can understand not liking the things that the Clinton's have done. I personally have never been a huge Hillary fan. But to compare disliking a person for what they've done politically is not the same as having a guy say racially insensitive things that offend you.

Trump has said things like "great relationship with the blacks", he was sued for not renting to African Americans, he didn't apologize for calling for the deaths of innocent minority kids, he said that blacks are lazy because of inherited traits, he said that blacks live in communities with violence that you can't walk down the street in (to an all white audience no less), "look at my African-American over there". Just a few things that were offensive.

Now you may disagree with the Clintons on policy. But what have they said that has offended you in anyway in the way Trump has to African Americans? If it has anything to do with Bill Clinton and women. You should leave that argument at home because Fox News and Trump play in that field too.

Be disgusted with the Clintons. They bring it on themselves at times. But to compare being offended by them the way African Americans are by Trump is a false parallel. Originally Posted by Milly23

C'mon millsy. You can't be serious. Your argument collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. I won't presume to be able to measure how deeply Trump offends you. I won't try to pooh-pooh or downplay or dismiss your feelings. Yet that is precisely what you are trying to do to other people who are deeply offended by the Clintons!

You have no basis for saying the Clintons offend me any more or less than Trump offends you. We're talking about visceral reactions, not mere policy disagreements. Just because your negative visceral reaction to Trump is triggered by his perceived racial insensitivity doesn't make it any more intense or deeply felt than someone else's negative visceral reaction to the Clintons triggered by, say, their perceived insensitivity to coal miners.

Your argument is unwinnable. If Trump offends you so much, you should be able to feel empathy toward others who say they are deeply offended by the Clintons. Otherwise, you're being a narcissist who thinks only your feelings matter.

I would agree with you, speedy, except for the Biden Rule. And the Schumer Rule. And the Reid Rule.

All 3 of those Democrats are on videotape stating as a matter of policy and principle the Senate should NOT consider any Supreme Court nominee during the last 12-18 months of a Republican President's term. You can look them up on youtube.

So it's utterly untrue to say there was "no justification" for what the Republicans did to Garland. In fact, they specifically justified waiting until after the November election by pointing to the public statements of Biden, Schumer and Reid!

The Dems made their bed, but didn't want to sleep in it! What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Originally Posted by lustylad

Lol public statements are so easy to remember when they work in your favor. Want to hear some public statements about people being under investigations that now we don't think about..

Chief of Staff Priebus:
FBI probe alone enough that Clinton shouldn’t have been President.

Kellyanne Conway:
“Most honest people I know are not under FBI investigation, let alone two.”

Paul Ryan:
Said that Clinton shouldn't receive classified briefings while under investigation.

Not to mention Michael Flynn chanting lock her up when he's the one doing illegal things.

Sean Spicer talked about investigations, Pence, Trump.

But we now know that Clinton wasn't the only one under investigation. Yet those public statements aren't really being used as justification are they? I mean if the Speaker of the House truly thinks no one under investigation should receive classified data, that would mean people in the Trump administration since it's currently, and during the election, under investigation.

My point is, it's funny how you want to talk about the Biden Rule as a reason to hold open a SC seat because it was a statement about a hypothetical seat. The statements above were not hypothetical, they were Republicans on their high horses talking about how bad Clinton was being under FBI investigation. And now they aren't singing the same tone knowing that the other guy was too. I guess those public statements are only justification to break precedent. Since the Democrats never refused to hold a hearing for a nominee.

Incidentally when a person is a Muslim he cannot cease to be a Muslim or join a different faith without becoming an apostate, which is punishable by death, to wit: a sword lopping off their head. Originally Posted by pussycat

Debunked nonsense, however, I would expect nothing less from a racist bigot like pussycat. All the lies about Obama were tailor-made for gullible racists like him.

C'mon millsy. You can't be serious. Your argument collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. I won't presume to be able to measure how deeply Trump offends you. I won't try to pooh-pooh or downplay or dismiss your feelings. Yet that is precisely what you are trying to do to other people who are deeply offended by the Clintons!

You have no basis for saying the Clintons offend me any more or less than Trump offends you. We're talking about visceral reactions, not mere policy disagreements. Just because your negative visceral reaction to Trump is triggered by his perceived racial insensitivity doesn't make it any more intense or deeply felt than someone else's negative visceral reaction to the Clintons triggered by, say, their perceived insensitivity to coal miners.

Your argument is unwinnable. If Trump offends you so much, you should be able to feel empathy toward others who say they are deeply offended by the Clintons. Otherwise, you're being a narcissist who thinks only your feelings matter. Originally Posted by lustylad

That's the thing, you started out by saying you can't measure how much he offends me. She did not in her response. She said she can get it because the Clintons offend her. And there is a difference between being offended by say coal miners and being offended by things that are racist in nature. If you can't understand the difference than I'm sorry. Coal mining is a job. Coal miners get paid for their work. Slaves did not. There weren't separate but equal laws for coal miners. If you can't see the difference in being offended by the racial aspects, idk what to tell you. I said I could understand being offended by the Clintons. I was empathetic to that. But to try to but the two feelings on the same footing, I won't do that. It's not the same. It isn't being narcissistic either.

When a person has an Arabic/Muslim name, went to Muslim schools as a child, was registered in the Islamic country of his residence as a Muslim (Indonesia) had parents who were Muslim, and then stated as an adult in a Presidential campaign that he was a Muslim....

Gee someone might "assume" that he's a Muslim. Originally Posted by pussycat

Politifact.com rates claims as Pants-on-Fire wrong
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...public-school/

"Obama's father is sometimes described as an atheist, while his stepfather drank alcohol, forbidden in Islam. Obama's American mother, Ann Dunham, rejected organized religion, according to several accounts. Obama has summed up his own faith history by saying he didn't grow up in any particular religious tradition."

'its contention that Obama attended a madrassa that taught Wahabism seems to be a wholesale invention designed to frighten voters. We rate the claim Pants-on-Fire wrong.'

Pretty much anything pussycat says comes from the far right fringe land of make believe. Zero integrity.