Raz'r

Time to impeach?

Yes or No?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Congress of the US begin formal Impeachment proceedings against Pres Trump?

    • Yes
      61
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, benwynn said:

My understanding of Clinton's reaction was to put a war room of experts on the impeachment while he got back to the people's business.

Trump's reaction is to spend less time watching TV.

But at least your mind reading schtick sounds better. In a MAGA sort of way. 

It's hard to argue with the brilliance of the Mobocrat.  But I'm not so sure Trump is watching less TV.  How else would he know how to run our country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Like much of what goes on in Congress, that was for show.

On what date was the formal Impeachment Inquiry announced?  That is the only date that matters.

Not according to Sol’s article.  It was all about when the alleged impeachment offenses occurred to when the inquiry was started. 
The Dems have been claiming Trump has been committing impeachable offenses since he was elected, Emoluments comes to Mind so it looks like it’s taken almost 3 years to open the inquiry.  
Far longer than Nixon or Clinton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jules said:

It's hard to argue with the brilliance of the Mobocrat.  But I'm not so sure Trump is watching less TV.  How else would he know how to run our country?

Magic 8-ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jules said:

It's hard to argue with the brilliance of the Mobocrat.  But I'm not so sure Trump is watching less TV.  How else would he know how to run our country?

By whining publicly about how unfair everyone is to him on a relatively constant basis?

That's a guess. Not sure if you're asking a trick question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be WAY more specific than that.  The constitution says:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

I think you are conflating congress with the House of Representatives.  Or, even worse, you simply don't understand the division of responsibility.  

The constitution does allow the investigation to begin in either the House or the Senate.  Any committee in either can start the investigation.  That is likely how you're confusing your quote, and trying to apply it in a way that it doesn't actually mean.  As Clean has repeatedly challenged you, show us the law that supports your argument.  Otherwise (like I stated in my post above), go act indignant and tell us how unAmerican the Democrats are acting by following the laws.

Seriously.  If you sat down for a half hour and read the wikipedia page on impeachment it would correct all these fallacies that you 'believe'.  It directly address the baloney you're trying to argue.

Congess was meant to imply the House,  Congressmen (women).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Joker said:

Correct.  But I just heard Alan Dershowitz  explain that the constitution requires the judicial to be involved when a dispute is happening between the legislature and the executive.  
 

What a coincidence!  I heard a monkey farting loudly around the same time you did, then I saw it shit on its hand and smear it all over its face.  You should ask Derpowitz why the Constitution names the CJ as presiding of the senate proceeding but amazingly no judicial officer oversees congress's power of impeachment. Crazy, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Congess was meant to imply the House

Fascinating argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not according to Sol’s article.  It was all about when the alleged impeachment offenses occurred to when the inquiry was started. 
The Dems have been claiming Trump has been committing impeachable offenses since he was elected, Emoluments comes to Mind so it looks like it’s taken almost 3 years to open the inquiry.  
Far longer than Nixon or Clinton. 

Sounds like you prefer a rush to judgement.

Is there anything about this whole debacle you aren't going to whine about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is so unfair that the House is using the R's Clinton era rules on impeachment. Obviously there must be different rules for God's own messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

The Faithful have moved on from the talking point of "There was no quid pro quo".

Nothing will shake their devotion to "The Chosen One".

Like a @Dog with a bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The Faithful have moved on from the talking point of "There was no quid pro quo".

Nothing will shake their devotion to "The Chosen One".

Like a @Dog with a bone.

Like a hypocritical liar.. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sondland "is going to have some explaining to do

Veteran diplomat Bill Taylor on Tuesday testified before the House Intelligence Committee and he claimed that Sondland told him that aid to Ukraine may be held up unless the Ukrainian government made a public announcement of an investigation that would be beneficial to Trump’s reelection campaign.

Sondland denied having any such direct knowledge of a quid-pro-quo regarding Ukrainian aid during his testimony last week, although he did acknowledge that such an arrangement could not be definitively ruled out.

Given the apparent contradiction, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) hinted to reporters that Sondland will be called back to testify in short order.

“After today, Mr. Sondland is going to have some explaining to do,” he said, according to Vice News’ Cameron Joseph.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/trumps-eu-ambassador-will-have-some-explaining-to-do-after-taylors-explosive-testimony-house-intel-dem/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's having a great day:

1.  Uses the term lynching to describe the impeachment inquiry.  A term largely associated with racism and hangings of African Americans in the South. 

2.  The Acting Ambassador to the Ukraine testifies that things were even more obvious regarding holding up aid to the Ukraine without the public promise of Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens. 

3.  We learn that our old pal Anonymous is coming out with a book next month that clearly will detail Trump's failings in the WH.  

Did I miss anything?  Day's not over.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Trump's having a great day:

1.  Uses the term lynching to describe the impeachment inquiry.  A term largely associated with racism and hangings of African Americans in the South. 

2.  The Acting Ambassador to the Ukraine testifies that things were even more obvious regarding holding up aid to the Ukraine without the public promise of Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens. 

3.  We learn that our old pal Anonymous is coming out with a book next month that clearly will detail Trump's failings in the WH.  

Did I miss anything?  Day's not over.  

There’s this:

'I'm in charge of the Hatch Act': Trump lashes out at chief of staff over potential ethics violations, report says

  https://news.yahoo.com/im-charge-hatch-act-trump-174653383.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

The Faithful have moved on from the talking point of "There was no quid pro quo".

Nothing will shake their devotion to "The Chosen One".

Like a @Dog with a boner.

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

Trump's having a great day:

1.  Uses the term lynching to describe the impeachment inquiry.  A term largely associated with racism and hangings of African Americans in the South. 

2.  The Acting Ambassador to the Ukraine testifies that things were even more obvious regarding holding up aid to the Ukraine without the public promise of Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens. 

3.  We learn that our old pal Anonymous is coming out with a book next month that clearly will detail Trump's failings in the WH.  

Did I miss anything?  Day's not over.  

Yeah, it's really more like tar and feathering.  He overstated there.

BTW, it wasn't only african-americans who were lynched although they are definitely over-represented.

From WIki on lynchings

According to the Tuskegee Institute, 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968 in the United States, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites. More than 73 percent of lynchings in the post-Civil War period occurred in the Southern states.[9] According to the Equal Justice Initiative, 4,084 African-Americans were lynched between 1877 and 1950 in the South.[10]

Yeah, it's WIki but there is an incomplete list of lynching victims here.

They seem to have started with Chinese and moved on to Italians.  Most if the italians seem to have occurred in Louisiana.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, it's really more like tar and feathering.  He overstated there.

BTW, it wasn't only african-americans who were lynched although they are definitely over-represented.

From WIki on lynchings

According to the Tuskegee Institute, 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968 in the United States, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites. More than 73 percent of lynchings in the post-Civil War period occurred in the Southern states.[9] According to the Equal Justice Initiative, 4,084 African-Americans were lynched between 1877 and 1950 in the South.[10]

Yeah, it's WIki but there is an incomplete list of lynching victims here.

They seem to have started with Chinese and moved on to Italians.  Most if the italians seem to have occurred in Louisiana.

 

Tar and Feathering? Homie Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

BTW, it wasn't only african-americans who were lynched although they are definitely over-represented.

Agree, hence my comment "largely associated with..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, benwynn said:

By whining publicly about how unfair everyone is to him on a relatively constant basis?

That's a guess. Not sure if you're asking a trick question. 

I understand.  As a graduate of Trump University and Steak House, we were taught a lot about trick questions and how to sell dogmeat as steak.

But I forgot the question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, it's really more like tar and feathering. 

That would be okay.  Could we put the feathers where we want them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Trump's having a great day:

1.  Uses the term lynching to describe the impeachment inquiry.  A term largely associated with racism and hangings of African Americans in the South. 

2.  The Acting Ambassador to the Ukraine testifies that things were even more obvious regarding holding up aid to the Ukraine without the public promise of Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens. 

3.  We learn that our old pal Anonymous is coming out with a book next month that clearly will detail Trump's failings in the WH.  

Did I miss anything?  Day's not over.  

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-top-dems-including-nadler-called-clinton-impeachment-lynching.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15717883398869&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fflashback-top-dems-including-nadler-called-clinton-impeachment-lynching

Nancy or Chuck or the Nadler cunt used Lynching in describing Clinton's impeachment, fuck off.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, it's really more like tar and feathering

Yup. it's a grassroots movement against an agent of tyrannical government power.

Oh - that's probably not what you meant, is it bullshitter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sean said:

It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. 

You are a fucking moron. A lynching is a vernacular "ganging up on"   You want to be a sissy boy, fine, then fuck off,  you lefty fucks lynch me every  time  I show you how stupud you look.

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/0/Dogballs/politics/biden-1998-impeach-kfile/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15717895582952&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F10%2F22%2Fpolitics%2Fbiden-1998-impeach-kfile%2Findex.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warbird said:

You are a fucking moron. A lynching is a vernacular "ganging up on"   You want to be a sissy boy, fine, then fuck off,  you lefty fucks lynch me every  time  I show you how stupud you look.

Irony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, warbird said:

Nancy or Chuck or the Nadler cunt used Lynching in describing Clinton's impeachment, fuck off.:lol:

So we should add plagiarism to Trump's list of offenses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

warbird - too stupud to die.

Bunch a pantywaist sisyboys forget Lynch was just fine for your savior, Obama :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

So we should add plagiarism to Trump's list of offenses?

I love whenever one of the gullible Faithful excuse President Trump’s words or actions by citing something similar/identical by the opposition.

If they had any integrity, they’d know this disqualifies their bitching about what the Dems have said or done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, The Joker said:

He didn’t tell me anything directly as I was listening on the radio.  I believe he did mention the first part of section 2 

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution

What does the rest of it say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I love whenever one of the gullible Faithful excuse President Trump’s words or actions by citing something similar/identical by the opposition.

If they had any integrity, they’d know this disqualifies their bitching about what the Dems have said or done. 

You mean something like the trillion dollar annual deficits? I’m here on the Fiscal Responsibility Express thinking “where’d everybody go?” Sometime around 1/20/17 all the holier than thoumouths jumped off the train faster than greased lightning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys know, abuse of power is not a crime.

An attorney just told me so.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just listened to Hannity’s opening comedy monologue. Holy shit, his 3m listeners are just plain nuts.

from outrage to commercials, doesn’t miss a beat.

shifty shiff

unfair

so unfair

unprecedented unfair

shifty shiff

so called non whistling whistleblower

Ukraine!

shifty Schiff!

transcript

no quo’s pro quo

negating your election!

shifty Schiff!


commercials of:

identify theft

life insurance

Direct text messaging tech

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta make hay when the sun shines, its gonna be fun when  the shit finally hits the fan, he'll turn on him like a cheap hooker that's been told shes past her use by date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Gotta make hay when the sun shines, its gonna be fun when  the shit finally hits the fan, he'll turn on him like a cheap hooker that's been told shes past her use by date.

I hope Hannity burns in hell.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
16 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

SO Unfair. 

Yugely unfair!  Everyone is saying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 hours ago, Sean said:

It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. 

That's BS.  I actually agree with WB on this one.  Calling the use of "lynching" as racist is what I fucking despise about our current PC society.  As WB correctly said, the term lynching in today's use is a shorthand for being ganged up on or ambushed or figuratively strung up without any solid evadents.

I don't believe what is happening to cheeto shitstain is a lynching, because there is a pretty solid case being built.  But using it in that context is NOT racist.  Jesus, you PC fucks can find racism in a bowl of cereal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's BS.  I actually agree with WB on this one.  Calling the use of "lynching" as racist is what I fucking despise about our current PC society.  As WB correctly said, the term lynching in today's use is a shorthand for being ganged up on or ambushed or figuratively strung up without any solid evadents.

I don't believe what is happening to cheeto shitstain is a lynching, because there is a pretty solid case being built.  But using it in that context is NOT racist.  Jesus, you PC fucks can find racism in a bowl of cereal.  

Coco puffs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jerseyguy said:

There’s this:

'I'm in charge of the Hatch Act': Trump lashes out at chief of staff over potential ethics violations, report says

  https://news.yahoo.com/im-charge-hatch-act-trump-174653383.html

 

 

He's actually right.  Generally the president enforces it.  So by ignoring it, the law will simply go unenforced.  Unless... you know.... someone were to take it upon themselves to point out that lack of enforcement could also be construed as support for the act itself.  Which is illegal.  Clean would have to speak up for us to understand some of the peculiarities of how it might work, or if it were even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's BS.  I actually agree with WB on this one.  Calling the use of "lynching" as racist is what I fucking despise about our current PC society.  As WB correctly said, the term lynching in today's use is a shorthand for being ganged up on or ambushed or figuratively strung up without any solid evadents.

I don't believe what is happening to cheeto shitstain is a lynching, because there is a pretty solid case being built.  But using it in that context is NOT racist.  Jesus, you PC fucks can find racism in a bowl of cereal.  

I have never, not once in all my 40 plus years ever heard the word lynching and not thought of black people being strung up in a tree.  Nor would I ever think of using the term unless I was referring to that heinous act.

The term lynching "in today's use" is a racist dog whistle at minimum.  The first people to criticize Trump's use of the word were African Americans.  To think that Trump used the word for anything other than to start a fight to completely ignore how the term is actually used "today".  His use of the term was intentional.  Don't be stupid.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

lynching "in today's use" is a racist dog whistle at minimum.  The first people to criticize Trump's use of the word were African Americans.  To think that Trump used the word for anything other than to start a fight to completely ignore how the term is actually used "today".  His use of the term w

Sorry, but I think that this one is a matter of opinion.  I've used the term numerous times and never been called / never thought for a second it was 'racist.  And on that note, the more power we give to this idea of words like this being 'racist', the bigger a divide we create with a whole class of things that people shouldn't say.

This reminds me of the multiple efforts the *chan message boards have taken up to co-opt common terms and symbols as racist to get them removed from the vernacular.  I still use the OK symbol (thumb to index finger in a circle), and if anyone wants to call me on it I'll tell them point blank that it wasn't a racist symbol and it still isn't.

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture

If people want to base their opinion of you or be offended by this sort of thing, they aren't the type of people I feel like associating with.  Life's too short to worry if picking up the wrong fork at dinner to eat my salad is going to make me look uncultured.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's BS.  I actually agree with WB on this one.  Calling the use of "lynching" as racist is what I fucking despise about our current PC society.  As WB correctly said, the term lynching in today's use is a shorthand for being ganged up on or ambushed or figuratively strung up without any solid evadents.

I don't believe what is happening to cheeto shitstain is a lynching, because there is a pretty solid case being built.  But using it in that context is NOT racist.  Jesus, you PC fucks can find racism in a bowl of cereal.  

you don;t fucking get it...YOU don't get to make the definition up to suit YOUR views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Sorry, but I think that this one is a matter of opinion.  I've used the term numerous times and never been called / never thought for a second it was 'racist.  And on that note, the more power we give to this idea of words like this being 'racist', the bigger a divide we create with a whole class of things that people shouldn't say.

This reminds me of the multiple effort the *chan message boards have taken up to co-opt common terms and symbols as racist to get them removed from the vernacular.  I still use the OK symbol (thumb to index finger in a circle), and if anyone wants to call me on it I'll tell them point blank that it wasn't a racist symbol and it still isn't.

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture

Total load of horse shit.

I'm going to respectfully disagree that it's a matter of opinion.  The term has been around far too long.

I also believe that it's apples and oranges when trying to compare the co-opting of the "ok" symbol.

Perhaps, however, we're looking at this the wrong way.....I think donny knew exactly what he was saying and meant to use that word in the context that he did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dacapo said:

I'm going to respectfully disagree that it's a matter of opinion.  The term has been around far too long.

I also believe that it's apples and oranges when trying to compare the co-opting of the "ok" symbol.

Perhaps, however, we're looking at this the wrong way.....I think donny knew exactly what he was saying and meant to use that word in the context that he did.

What I first typed just now:

That's cool.  I can agree to disagree on whether it's a racist term. 

But after researching it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

I think I'm going to change my mind and try to stop using the term.  There's too much horrible history tied up with it.  I'm going to agree that he knew exactly what he was doing when he used it.  I almost want to say he isn't that subtle or nuanced, but I truthfully go back and forth on whether he isn't some type of idiot savant when it comes to generating hatred.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with dicap; while it is POSSIBLE that, in the circles of old white guys, "lynching" MAY have other interpretations, other groups hear the racial intonation. This is, I think, another market test by Dolt 45 to see if support from the white supremacist/Christian Identity wing will be enough to keep him from probable conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

I have to agree with dicap; while it is POSSIBLE that, in the circles of old white guys, "lynching" MAY have other interpretations, other groups hear the racial intonation. This is, I think, another market test by Dolt 45 to see if support from the white supremacist/Christian Identity wing will be enough to keep him from probable conviction.

It wasn’t a problem when Biden used it to describe how republicans were going about impeaching Clinton. 

“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden told the network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It wasn’t a problem when Biden used it to describe how republicans were going about impeaching Clinton. 

“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden told the network.

It was a problem.  It's a terrible word to use to describe anything other than what it is.  We just didn't have daily social media reminders back then.  Biden should be held accountable as everyone else is.  I, personally, agreed with Clinton being impeached...he lied under oath.  And Trump has gone well beyond that.  If you don't like Biden, don't vote for him.  In the meantime, it's past time to hold THIS president accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Biden elected to represent the entire population of the United States rather than the white supremacist/Christian Identity wing? While reprehensible "fire-eating" speech has been a part of Congressional debate, the President as representative of ALL the US citizenry is held to a higher standard. "That's just the way he talks" is a poor excuse for deliberate, inflammatory speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It wasn’t a problem when Biden used it to describe how republicans were going about impeaching Clinton. 

“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden told the network.

no, it was a problem with me as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Was Biden elected to represent the entire population of the United States rather than the white supremacist/Christian Identity wing? While reprehensible "fire-eating" speech has been a part of Congressional debate, the President as representative of ALL the US citizenry is held to a higher standard. "That's just the way he talks" is a poor excuse for deliberate, inflammatory speech.

So it’s not the word it’s who says it.   Classic TDS

I understand others saying the word shouldn’t be used at all,  your argument is bullshit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

I have never, not once in all my 40 plus years ever heard the word lynching and not thought of black people being strung up in a tree.  

Why are you so racict.........? There is a whole generation or 2 or 3 that grew up not with PC but with Westerns where there as often as not was a lynching party for a villian rightly or the hero wrongly. Get off your high horse. Bigot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, warbird said:

Why are you so racict.........? There is a whole generation or 2 or 3 that grew up not with PC but with Westerns where there as often as not was a lynching party for a villian rightly or the hero wrongly. Get off your high horse. Bigot.

 You are a weak minded, ignorant piece of shit.  Projection your racism on me won't work.  Name one western (which were pretty damn racist back in the day) that called a hanging  a "lynching".  Get a fucking clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

 You are a weak minded, ignorant piece of shit.  Projection your racism on me won't work.  Name one western (which were pretty damn racist back in the day) that called a hanging  a "lynching".  Get a fucking clue.

today's talking point: Lynchings were for white folk too.  What are you, racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

 You are a weak minded, ignorant piece of shit.  Projection your racism on me won't work.  Name one western (which were pretty damn racist back in the day) that called a hanging  a "lynching".  Get a fucking clue.

Ah, there were no coloreds, blacks, africanamericans in most of those 40s, 50s, 60s films. Not my fault, not yours either. But YOU equate lynching with racism, that makes you the racist  because I certainly do not. Your bigotry is proven right there. Own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warbird said:

Ah, there were no coloreds, blacks, africanamericans in most of those 40s, 50s, 60s films. Not my fault, not yours either. But YOU equate lynching with racism, that makes you the racist  because I certainly do not. Your bigotry is proven right there. Own it.

There were plenty of Indians killed in those movies.  

I equate lynching with black people hanging from trees.  That is not racism.  That is what most intelligent people equate it to.  You have no clue what the terms racism or bigot mean.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dacapo said:

you don;t fucking get it...YOU don't get to make the definition up to suit YOUR views.

You dont get to change the definition to suit your PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Swimsailor said:

There were plenty of Indians killed in those movies.  

I equate lynching with black people hanging from trees.  That is not racism.  That is what most intelligent people equate it to.  You have no clue what the terms racism or bigot mean.  

You have no concept of the Origin of the word. Bigot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

  

I equate lynching with black people hanging from trees.   

Sucks to have such a jaundiced outlook. Get help for you bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

 

I equate lynching with black people hanging from trees.   

That is exactly racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's BS.  I actually agree with WB on this one.  Calling the use of "lynching" as racist is what I fucking despise about our current PC society.  As WB correctly said, the term lynching in today's use is a shorthand for being ganged up on or ambushed or figuratively strung up without any solid evadents.

I don't believe what is happening to cheeto shitstain is a lynching, because there is a pretty solid case being built.  But using it in that context is NOT racist.  Jesus, you PC fucks can find racism in a bowl of cereal.  

Comparing the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress, to a hate crime.

Yeah. Just the same. And you wonder how we know you're a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

There were plenty of Indians killed in those movies.  

I equate lynching with black people hanging from trees.  That is not racism.  That is what most intelligent people equate it to.  You have no clue what the terms racism or bigot mean.  

I'm being pedantic with this comparison, but, what would you call the group that showed up at Lee Remick's character's house in this movie? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_River_(film)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, warbird said:

That is exactly racism.

What the actual fuck are you talking about?  That's not racism, that's history.  Never in the last 100 years has the term been used for anything other than that.  Sure, ignorant pieces of shit like you may try to assign a less benign meaning to suit your own fantasies of what life is really like for people who don't look like you but you're the one out of line with your thinking. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's BS.  I actually agree with WB on this one.  Calling the use of "lynching" as racist is what I fucking despise about our current PC society.  As WB correctly said, the term lynching in today's use is a shorthand for being ganged up on or ambushed or figuratively strung up without any solid evadents.

I don't believe what is happening to cheeto shitstain is a lynching, because there is a pretty solid case being built.  But using it in that context is NOT racist.  Jesus, you PC fucks can find racism in a bowl of cereal.  

LYnching isn't racist? @mad doesn't realize you are a fucking idiot?

Take a look at the map snowflake: http://www.monroeworktoday.org/explore/map2/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Swimsailor said:

What the actual fuck are you talking about?  That's not racism, that's history.  Never in the last 100 years has the term been used for anything other than that.  Sure, ignorant pieces of shit like you may try to assign a less benign meaning to suit your own fantasies of what life is really like for people who don't look like you but you're the one out of line with your thinking. 

Sorry - but, you're simply wrong about that.  See Biden's quote upstream for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry - but, you're simply wrong about that.  See Biden's quote upstream for example. 

Biden was wrong just as Trump was.  The term is used to shock.  Why?  Because of the image it evokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry - but, you're simply wrong about that.  See Biden's quote upstream for example. 

No, you're right, white people has been misappropriating the term to use for their own benefit for as long as they have been justifying their mistreatment of brown skinned people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The Democrats were stupid in the past, Republicans are justified in the present doing stupid shit is so on brand for AGITC.

You really do have a problem w/reading comprehension - meet me for a beer sometime, I'll help ya with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

What the actual fuck are you talking about?  That's not racism, that's history.  Never in the last 100 years has the term been used for anything other than that.  Sure, ignorant pieces of shit like you may try to assign a less benign meaning to suit your own fantasies of what life is really like for people who don't look like you but you're the one out of line with your thinking. 

When I hear the word, my immediate thought is the same as yours, but the term has evolved to have more temperate meanings as well.  This evolution I assume is in part due to the fact that the racist actions resulting in deaths are a thing of the past.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Swimsailor said:

No, you're right, white people has been misappropriating the term to use for their own benefit for as long as they have been justifying their mistreatment of brown skinned people.

A change in the colloquial use of a word is misappropriating it?   
So Biden's use of the word was intended to "justify mistreatment of brown people"?   Do tell.   Please note - I'm not defending OR condemning Biden's language - but, I do think it's appropriate to use the example to demonstrate that context and intent matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

A change in the colloquial use of a word is misappropriating it?   
So Biden's use of the word was intended to "justify mistreatment of brown people"?   Do tell.   Please note - I'm not defending OR condemning Biden's language - but, I do think it's appropriate to use the example to demonstrate that context and intent matter.  

You misread what I wrote..."for as long as white people...".

White people do like to change the colloquial use of words of however.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Damn son -you got it bad, don't ya? 

Not sure what ailment you think I suffer from.  Just the reality of our time.  White people like to tell non white people what is racist and what isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Swimsailor said:

Not sure what ailment you think I suffer from.  Just the reality of our time.  White people like to tell non white people what is racist and what isn't.

You have "white==bad" blinders on.   "White people do like to change the colloquial use of words of however. "   Only white people can do those things?   OK 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You have "white==bad" blinders on.   "White people do like to change the colloquial use of words of however. "   Only white people can do those things?   OK 

 

I don't think being white is bad.  Nor do I have any guilt for being white.  I also don't think it's just white people.  I just think white people shouldn't be telling non whites how to feel. It's really not a tough concept.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, warbird said:

That is exactly racism.

Warbird, I've challenged Joker to educate himself on the constitution about the "vote in the house in the impeachment" bullshit.  Now I challenge you to read the wikipedia entry for lynching.  See where it came from and how it was used for the vast majority of the time in the United States.  Then come back here and say you truly believe the word lynching doesn't have racial overtones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Warbird, I've challenged Joker to educate himself on the constitution about the "vote in the house in the impeachment" bullshit.  Now I challenge you to read the wikipedia entry for lynching.  See where it came from and how it was used for the vast majority of the time in the United States.  Then come back here and say you truly believe the word lynching doesn't have racial overtones.

Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, convicted transgressor, or to intimidate a group. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle (often in the form of hanging) for maximum intimidation.[1] Instances of lynchings and similar mob violence can be found in every society.[2][3][4]

In the United States, lynchings of African Americans became frequent in the South during the period after the Reconstruction era into the 20th century. Lynchings are common in many contemporary societies, particularly in countries with high crime rates such as Brazil, Guatemala and South Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

I don't think being white is bad.  Nor do I have any guilt for being white.  I also don't think it's just white people.  I just think white people shouldn't be telling non whites how to feel. It's really not a tough concept.

On this?  We can sorta agree - NOBODY should be telling ANYONE else how to feel.  Discussing WHY someone feels the way they do ought happen a lot more.  Again, constraining your comment to "white people" is as bad as telling "black people" what they should be doing, n'est-ce pas? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gone Drinking said:

Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, convicted transgressor, or to intimidate a group. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle (often in the form of hanging) for maximum intimidation.[1] Instances of lynchings and similar mob violence can be found in every society.[2][3][4]

In the United States, lynchings of African Americans became frequent in the South during the period after the Reconstruction era into the 20th century. Lynchings are common in many contemporary societies, particularly in countries with high crime rates such as Brazil, Guatemala and South Africa.

If you are going for the award as the "poster most willing to cherry pick information", I'll give you the certificate myself.  Now try reading the whole entry.  Pay special attention to the part about the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

In the United States, lynchings of African Americans became frequent in the South during the period after the Reconstruction era into the 20th century. Lynchings are common in many contemporary societies, particularly in countries with high crime rates such as Brazil, Guatemala and South Africa.

so - totally racist in the US? there were native americans, chinese, mexicans and even italian americans that were lynched too if that makes it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites