Dog
Super Anarchist
- 37,940
- 444
I don't accept the premise.Why do you want to use Soviet propaganda techniques to make your point?
Many people are wondering about that.
I don't accept the premise.Why do you want to use Soviet propaganda techniques to make your point?
Many people are wondering about that.
I have not been mocked, per se. Insulted and called all sorts of names - yes.Speaking only from my own personal experience I have not been mocked for believing Trump is unfit. Have you?
It didn't help that those leading the charge were proven to be hypocrites. And thanks for avoiding or missing the point.There were many people who didn't think Clinton's behavior was acceptable at the time. They were generally mocked.
It not umbrage at their support, they can support whoever they want. It's when they start preaching their holier than thou ethics to me that I push back.I have not been mocked, per se. Insulted and called all sorts of names - yes.
This from folks who feel the need to defend the current President as if he were fit and qualified to occupy the office and any suggestion otherwise deserves a vigorous opposition.
I was simply trying to find if you reserve the same umbrage for those who support President Trump as you do for those who supported President Clinton. You know, consistency.
Your point was that society has changed and what was acceptable then is not now. My point is that for some it was not acceptable even then.It didn't help that those leading the charge were proven to be hypocrites. And thanks for avoiding or missing the point.
Clinton had a boorish affair with a consenting adult.It not umbrage at their support, they can support whoever they want. It's when they start preaching their holier than thou ethics to me that I push back.
BTW...Do you reserve the same umbrage for those who supported President Clinton as you do for those who support President Trump? You know, consistency.I have not been mocked, per se. Insulted and called all sorts of names - yes.
Some even suggest I suffer from TDS. Who might that be?
This from folks who feel the need to defend the current President as if he were fit and qualified to occupy the office and any suggestion otherwise deserves a vigorous opposition.
I was simply trying to find if you reserve the same umbrage for those who support President Trump as you do for those who supported President Clinton. You know, consistency.
I was in the middle of a long message that Dog (I lick my balls) would have attacked. BD, teaching school is huge and you have my respect.I have not been mocked, per se. Insulted and called all sorts of names - yes.
Some even suggest I suffer from TDS. Who might that be?
This from folks who feel the need to defend the current President as if he were fit and qualified to occupy the office and any suggestion otherwise deserves a vigorous opposition.
I was simply trying to find if you reserve the same umbrage for those who support President Trump as you do for those who supported President Clinton. You know, consistency.
Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Wiley?Clinton had a boorish affair with a consenting adult.
Trump bragged about being able to sexually assault women with impunity.
Moore sexually assaulted children.
You can't see any moral difference between them?
Really?
No, they skipped. You should die, sooner vs later.kmacdonald said:I believe them. I agree with what you are saying. The Jews walked into the furnaces.
Agreed...BD not only teaches. He does it in inner city Baltimore...BD walks the walk.I just turned 60 and have little doubt I could sail circles around most if not all of you.
I was in the middle of a long message that Dog (I lick my balls) would have attacked. BD, teaching school is huge and you have my respect.
Pat, can I have who gives a shit for $1000?Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Wiley?
Given the example I wrote exactly why is that? because you are a butt hurt Trump supporter? Really rich having you write about someone being disingenuous and inflammatory, ironic almost.kmacdonald said:Lumping Moore supporters with Trump supporters is disingenuous and inflammatory. You lose ALL credibility in doing so.
Hannity isn't caving to facts. He doesn't do that. He is responding to all the advertisers who pulled their ads from his show. When it was just Keurig, it was easy to get his sheeple followers to willingly destroy the appliance they had paid for. But when Volvo (among many others) pulled their advertising dollars, it was more difficult to convince them to push their family wagons off a local cliff. The network would have looked at the loss of revenue and then told Hannity to *not* spout bullshit, just this once.Looks like Dog's elk are running:
From CNN:
Hannity said he was troubled by different answers Moore had given to questions about whether he had dated teenage girls. He also noted that Moore had denied knowing a fifth accuser who had charged the future Senate candidate with sexual assault three decades ago, yet it appeared that Moore had written in the teen's yearbook.
Two Fox News panelists on Hannity's show Monday, Jeanine Pirro and Geraldo Rivera, both said after the emergence of the latest accuser that they could not support Moore.
Also Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, another conservative bellwether, wrote that "a famous country song aptly summed up where the Republicans are with Senate candidate Roy Moore in Alabama: You've got to know when to fold 'em."
"Mr. Moore's credibility has fallen below the level of survivability," the Journal wrote.
There are cliffs in fly-over country?Hannity isn't caving to facts. He doesn't do that. He is responding to all the advertisers who pulled their ads from his show. When it was just Keurig, it was easy to get his sheeple followers to willingly destroy the appliance they had paid for. But when Volvo (among many others) pulled their advertising dollars, it was more difficult to convince them to push their family wagons off a local cliff. The network would have looked at the loss of revenue and then told Hannity to *not* spout bullshit, just this once.