jakee

Now? When did you stop beating your wife? But about evening the tables - you haven't yet explained why you feel this is more worthy of discussion than what two world leaders say to each other about election tampering. I still don't get it.

During the war? After it?

When was there liberty in the USA?

First, because it's obvious. Gender identity stuff is easy to get wrong. So, is it more plausible that he just got it wrong like lots of people do, or that he believed something biologically impossible? Second, because he said so. Look T, you keep claiming you're not the biased partisan hack most people think you are - this is a great opportunity to prove it. The only reason for you to assume the guy is that stupid is because he's a dem. So maybe don't do it?

Get over yourself. You said something dumb, why not just own it? Your definition of liberty is impossible in the real world - and you've acknowledged that - however you also said "There hasn't been liberty in this country in a long time." as if it had once existed. What did you mean? When did it exist?

OK. He misspoke. He meant female to male transgender (who can and have become pregnant), and used the wrong term. So yes, what he meant was entirely plausible, but he accidentally expressed the view in an un-PC way. I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me why that's more important than what the President of the USA says to the President of Russia, because I really don't get it.

I disagree with him on feminism and gender identity politics.

Yes, some people disagree with some of his points.

But you were replying to Ron when you gave your definition of liberty that only works in a fantasy world.

Don't we all. But when did we start discussing fantasy?

Liberty with such a broad definition can only ever happen at an individual level, it's impossible to have it throughout society. The only social structure that offers it is anarchy, but the vast majority of people living within an anarchic society will in practice have less liberty than those living in a society where it is officially limited.

If you think Trump's Twitter feed is part of a grand plan, like he's some master puppeteer pulling the strings, consider this... he was so riled up when he posted it he sent the comment to a random person called Megan Rapino. There is no plan here - he's just a crybaby.

Murder is a fact of life, is the objective to be a murderer? Rape is a fact of life, is the objective to be a rapist? These are both questions that are directly in context of the Phoenix program, by the way.

Come on man. I know you guys love false equivalences but Ron deliberately moved across the country specifically so he could live in an enclave of very right wing conservative Christians with few to no liberals in the community. That’s not any kind of hyperbole, he literally has surrounded himself with like minded people in everyday life. Its a world of difference to frequenting a forum where there happen to be more liberals than conservatives regularly posting - especially since everyone here found this place because they skydive, not because they’re liberal.

An axe will always be cutting edge technology.

Why is the word so scary to you? He's describing himself as a socialist, not a Marxist. He doesn't want the US to be like those countries. And yet you support this socialist policy.

.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Do I need to say more? So what does the diability fund do if it doesn't give them money or provide for heathcare? Where does the cash go? That's capitalism. When the government steps in to protect those people because the market failed them? That's socialism. So how is this fund going to help with that, if it's not paying them? I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly what you're saying, is it really your contention that only direct pay and healthcare provision are socialist? Is that what you've got to tell yourself so you can avoid realising you support a socialist program?

It’s actually exhausting to try and keep up with what he’s saying!

What isn't? Which is a socialist position. People who work for the benefit of the state being taken care of by the state... what else could it be?

But it's not that he doesn't agree with his politics - he doesn't agree with a word. 'Socialist' covers a monumental amount of ground, and you can't know what someone's politics are on any particular issue (though you can make good guesses on a few) just because they use that word. Of course the irony in this case is that Bigun is criticising Stewart for identifying as socialist, in the thread Bigun started to praise Stewart for going to Congress and trying to drum up support for a purely socialist policy. Because that's what this is - government funded healthcare is socialist, even when it's for national heroes. So where are we at, he supports the socialist policy pushed by a socialist, even though he couldn't possibly support the socialist himself simply because he said he was a socialist?

No, asinine is again stating that two people who have done things wrong are therefore definitely doing the same quality and quantity of wrong stuff. Trump is documented to have lied about more things more often than any other President in history. It's not a fact that Hillary would have done the same, it's not a probability that she would, it's barely even a possibility. The false equivalence is asinine. Just because they are both politician does not mean they are the same.

That's such a bad example of an enthymeme as to not even be one. But you're intentionally misunderstanding again. There's no possible way that Kallend's post could be misinterpreted as suggesting that Trump is a Nazi. In the metaphor Trump is Chamberlain. Chamberlain was not a Nazi. I assume you are able to follow that. By pretending you're incapable of comprehending either post just so you can get some digs in at a political opponent you speak like nothing as much as a modern conservative

There is no conceivable way in which that would be the metaphor.

Why would anyone have needed a crystal ball to see Trump's flaws? Lol, nonsense. It's not even close. Compilations of Trump's many scandals are not hard to find. You don't know what the nature of their relationship is, or what deal they have. If Hillary decided she was ok with Bill's womanising that's entirely her decision, and frankly it's not an unusual one. However, as evidenced by Trump's divorces we can safely say not all his wives were ok with his philandering. Really strange you should claim Hillary's acceptance of her husband's rampant cheating is worse than Trump's own rampant cheating. Not being funny, but I can't see any obvious reason for that viewpoint beyond plain sexism. So what? Because Trump wasn't an elected official when he did all his criminal stuff you'll just excuse it? If you really believe that's a relevant point then you should only ever consider voting for candidates who've never held office before, and in the upcoming election you should definitely vote against Trump. After all, he'll be the only candidate who has been the focus of scandals while President.