Mass of an ass going critical

[mean mr.mustard]

And yes sign you are advocating killing the left don't tuck your balls in now.

You let it come out stand by it.

It shouldn't hurt to be a man.

I didn't call you a communist because it wouldn't fit like fascist would.

 

[Sign]

Of course it wouldn't fit, communists are the only ones with that much blood on their hands.

Now let's delve into what your issue with fascism is?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Now let's delve into what your issue with fascism is?

Let's just put you on ignore

 

[Sign]

Let's just put you on ignore

I thought so.

 

[rives]

In speaking on a point I inquired about two pages ago.

I was asking about whether or not it was a good thing that people are happy if the left is upset.

A few mature reasonable adults should be able to agree that a compromise beats bickering and violence.

However I'm finding that there is some militant passion in destroying the left.

I don't see myself as belonging to a side.

I find myself persecuted nonetheless.

Lots of hating, not a lot of solutions.

(Aside from killing)

Thanks for proving my point.

Now look at it.

Destroy the left.

You now have one party.

Welcome to Naziville.

I hope nobody thinks you are a xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic fascist.

You obviously have difficulty with self-knowledge if you think of yourself as not belonging to a side.

Personally, I think that it is wonderful that the Left is upset - they should be.

They should be upset that their party leaders decided to not only "out" a woman who asked to be kept anonymous, but that the information was only released in a last minute "gotcha" move instead of being presented at the correct time and place for serious consideration.

They should be upset that the DNC has moved so far to the left that they are falling over the edge, and are clutching at anyone nearby to drag them over with them.

They should be upset that they have been exposed as partisan assholes who will stop at, quite literally, nothing. Attempted murder? Check. Mayhem? Check. Libel? Check. Slander? Check. Generally acting like a bunch of spoiled pricks? Check.

They should be upset that the Democrats have been so marginalized THROUGH THEIR OWN EFFORTS that any rational person would run like hell in the other direction.

They should be upset that their chosen party has chosen to destroy the two-party system and any hope of finding a middle ground that works best for the citizens of the US, and it's the result of their own actions, not anyone else's.

You can fucking bet that I hope the Democrats are upset.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

You're happy.

Now what?

PS I'm on the side that thinks we need more, not fewer, parties.

 

[iTarzan]

Mr. Mustard I did mean endless but empty worked pretty good.

I don't agree with you on compromise because the left has not done any compromising. And they seem to want one party. The socialist party. They have TV, Hollywood, 2/3 of the music industry and the majority of the news outlets and newspapers on their side.
The right tends to be reserved in everyday life. Voting how they want and respecting however anybody else voted until they complain too much and they have to speak out. Then the left goes back to protesting, complaining and calling people names like nazi or racist.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

If you would peruse the last couple of pages you will see I just finished conversing with an individual who is antisemitic and profascism and I suppose those are "name calling".

I do protest and I am complaining, but that shouldn't bother a true American.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

They should be upset that their chosen party has chosen to destroy the two-party system and any hope of finding a middle ground that works best for the citizens of the US, and it's the result of their own actions, not anyone else's.

If I recall correctly Obama had quite a time with an uncompromising congress.

But I was probably mistaken because all of the political strife and corruption is the result of only one party's actions.

I must have had my facts distorted by reality.

 

[Sign]

If you would peruse the last couple of pages you will see I just finished conversing with an individual who is antisemitic and profascism and I suppose those are "name calling".

You attack the person because you can't attack the idea. When your name calling does not have the intended affect of completely reducing me to a blubbering apologetic mess saying things like "what? Antisemite? Fascist? Oh no anything but that oh my God I'm so sorry I came off that way please accept my apology and let me donate to a Jewish foundation" you run off since it's the internet and you can't go after my livelihood and punish me in the court of public opinion for wrongthink.

If your ideology had any merit or was based on any fact you wouldn't need to use ad hominems. You wouldn't fear criticism.

And like I said before, this is the best timeline and we're going to drag you kicking and screaming into a better world. So get comfy and enjoy the ride, you'll come around. This has happened so many times already.

 

[theJointedOne]

Dudes got like 20 nicknames lol

 

[gaiusmarius]

i think this conversation is running into a wall. there really is a problem with information bubbles. people can't seem to agree on basic facts, making it very hard to come to an agreement.

 

[gaiusmarius]

In speaking on a point I inquired about two pages ago.

I was asking about whether or not it was a good thing that people are happy if the left is upset.

A few mature reasonable adults should be able to agree that a compromise beats bickering and violence.

However I'm finding that there is some militant passion in destroying the left.

I don't see myself as belonging to a side.

I find myself persecuted nonetheless.

Lots of hating, not a lot of solutions.

(Aside from killing)

Thanks for proving my point.

Now look at it.

Destroy the left.

You now have one party.

Welcome to Naziville.

I hope nobody thinks you are a xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic fascist.





I'm sure you didn't mean empty sea but I sprayed bourbon all over my monitor.

Laughing beats sadness.

Thanks for that.

in all fairness i didnt see posts about killing, or the other stuff. maybe you know this members posting history, but in this discussion i dont see anyone advocating killing anyone until you brought it up, lol.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

In the Vietnamese conflict soldiers would take suspected spies or random people of interest and interrogate them on board a helicopter.

When they were done being questioned they were tossed out of the helicopter.

This generally convinced the next guy to tell more of the truth and so on down the line.

But since these were war crimes nobody ever made it back to the ground in the helicopter.

Sign thought the entire left was traitorous and in need of helicopter rides.

I was questioning him about that when he sidestepped the issue.

He claimed it wouldn't be murder because we have laws on the books for commies and traitors.

He's pretty proud of his position.

 

[rives]

If I recall correctly Obama had quite a time with an uncompromising congress.

But I was probably mistaken because all of the political strife and corruption is the result of only one party's actions.

I must have had my facts distorted by reality.

No, Obama did not have "quite a time" trying to work with anyone - he flatly refused to try, and did much to get us on the current path.

Remember "elections have consequences", "YOU have a beer with Mitch McConnell", "the police acted stupidly", "I have a pen and a phone", etc, etc.

Obama thought that trying to compromise and come to an agreement was beneath him. That is exactly why he didn't get a Status of Forces agreement in Iraq and wound up utterly wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

 

[Badfishy1]

No, Obama did not have "quite a time" trying to work with anyone - he flatly refused to try, and did much to get us on the current path.

Remember "elections have consequences", "YOU have a beer with Mitch McConnell", "the police acted stupidly", "I have a pen and a phone", etc, etc.

Obama thought that trying to compromise and come to an agreement was beneath him. That is exactly why he didn't get a Status of Forces agreement in Iraq and wound up utterly wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

But was willing to send pallets full of cash to Iran... Hussein was a sick individual and the his supporters are blind sheep

 

[St. Phatty]

i think this conversation is running into a wall. there really is a problem with information bubbles. people can't seem to agree on basic facts, making it very hard to come to an agreement.

We started out talking about Kavanaugh.

I guess "Mass of an Ass" = Kavanaugh - at the beginning of the conversation.

Now that he's been nominated, I imagine, when the court is addressed, "Ladies & Gentlemen" - will that get a laugh ? because Kavanaugh ain't.

 

[gaiusmarius]

But was willing to send pallets full of cash to Iran... Hussein was a sick individual and the his supporters are blind sheep

please try and remember that the money belonged to Iran, you might not like them but that doesn't justify stealing other nations money on false pretext. ie they paid for weapons and were scammed, money was accepted, but no weapons were delivered. this money amassed interest and was finally returned to Iran as part of the nuclear deal. so really, Obama didnt give away a penny. i'm no fan of Obama, but this giving back of stolen money seems the honorable thing to do and he didnt do it for free, Iran had to agree to a lot of inspections and limitations on their nuclear research and facilities.

 

[gaiusmarius]

btw while we all been distracted with the bread and games, Trump admin has announced a third world infrastructure investment of 60 billion. i thought it was gonna be American infrastructure to be fixed? at the same time they announced 38 million extra for Israels. security. all that money he saved on cutting funding for various UN programs is gone and a lot more with this 60 billion, lmao. another flip flop.

 

[rives]

please try and remember that the money belonged to Iran, you might not like them but that doesn't justify stealing other nations money on false pretext. ie they paid for weapons and were scammed, money was accepted, but no weapons were delivered. this money amassed interest and was finally returned to Iran as part of the nuclear deal. so really, Obama didnt give away a penny. i'm no fan of Obama, but this giving back of stolen money seems the honorable thing to do and he didnt do it for free, Iran had to agree to a lot of inspections and limitations on their nuclear research and facilities.

That money should have been used to settle the awards against Iran for their sponsorship of terrorism. They owe $920 million to the soldiers and family members involved in the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, and $6 billion as a result of 9/11.