Republicans gonna Republican

348,421 Views | 3666 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by oski003
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

oski003 said:


Nice outrage because they found someone who won't vote for a woman president because they are a woman. Yet you downplay outrage over a public school having pornographic illustrations in their books. Very tribal.
so it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of protecting free speech and being reasonable, open, and permissible rather than a freaked out curmudgeon telling others how to live and raise their kids.

Censor all the books you want at home. Leave my Fing kids the F out of your morality and nosy priggish hands on MY school.
I don't think you really believe that. If you actually had kids in elementary school and they wanted to show extreme adult-themed, pornographic movies to them, I suspect you would have your opinions as well. It is a subjective question of where the line is drawn. Thinking that you have the definitive answer is extremely arrogant.

Most of this debate started by the far left pushing their agenda on elementary school. Far right then said - hold my beer - and went the other extreme. Just idiots on both sides playing politics with our kids. *******s on each side.

While I disagree with the far right's censorship / prudish behavior towards literature, I also do not appreciate the far left's pushing of sexuality matters before parents are ready to have those discussions with kids.

And speaking of erring on the side of free speech coming from the cancel happy, microaggression, shouting down any speaker with opposing view progressives, you need to look at your side from time to time if you want to avoid coming across as completely lacking in self-awareness.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

concordtom said:

I just have to say…. You and I both know you're far too intelligent and reasoned to be debating pornography with clowns on this board.
But have at it. Unleash the fury!

. You are a clown.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Republicans in North Carolina are running a candidate for governor who wants to go back to when women couldn't vote.

Is North Carolina now in play for Biden?

https://www.threads.net/@bidenharrishq/post/C4MJWRNv0Hd/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Republicans in North Carolina are running a candidate who wants to go back to when women couldn't vote.

Is North Carolina now in play for Biden?

https://www.threads.net/@bidenharrishq/post/C4MJWRNv0Hd/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==


Why does threads always require me to reload pages multiple times to get a video to play?

Why does this specific video cut in the middle of his sentence/point? Are we allowed to see what he actually said?
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Republicans in North Carolina are running a candidate for governor who wants to go back to when women couldn't vote.

Is North Carolina now in play for Biden?

https://www.threads.net/@bidenharrishq/post/C4MJWRNv0Hd/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

If you give these right wing kooks enough rope, they just might hang themselves.

Same goes for the other side, like when the left wing kooks starting talking about "defunding the police".
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

dajo9 said:

Republicans in North Carolina are running a candidate for governor who wants to go back to when women couldn't vote.

Is North Carolina now in play for Biden?

https://www.threads.net/@bidenharrishq/post/C4MJWRNv0Hd/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

If you give these right wing kooks enough rope, they just might hang themselves.

Same goes for the other side, like when the left wing kooks starting talking about "defunding the police".


The right wants to DEFUND THE POLICE
https://www.threads.net/@acynig/post/C4LqpJyPYL8/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

blungld said:

oski003 said:


Nice outrage because they found someone who won't vote for a woman president because they are a woman. Yet you downplay outrage over a public school having pornographic illustrations in their books. Very tribal.
so it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of protecting free speech and being reasonable, open, and permissible rather than a freaked out curmudgeon telling others how to live and raise their kids.

Censor all the books you want at home. Leave my Fing kids the F out of your morality and nosy priggish hands on MY school.
I don't think you really believe that. If you actually had kids in elementary school and they wanted to show extreme adult-themed, pornographic movies to them, I suspect you would have your opinions as well. It is a subjective question of where the line is drawn. Thinking that you have the definitive answer is extremely arrogant.

Most of this debate started by the far left pushing their agenda on elementary school. Far right then said - hold my beer - and went the other extreme. Just idiots on both sides playing politics with our kids. *******s on each side.

While I disagree with the far right's censorship / prudish behavior towards literature, I also do not appreciate the far left's pushing of sexuality matters before parents are ready to have those discussions with kids.

And speaking of erring on the side of free speech coming from the cancel happy, microaggression, shouting down any speaker with opposing view progressives, you need to look at your side from time to time if you want to avoid coming across as completely lacking in self-awareness.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:




They investigated him because of his behavior working for Trump but demoted him because they "discovered" old questionable behavior while working for Obama. Perhaps he disagrees with the demotion and feels he was politically targeted. He should have never declared Trump in excellent health!

WASHINGTON Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, engaged in "inappropriate conduct" while serving as the top White House physician, according to a Pentagon inspector general report obtained Wednesday by NBC News.

The scathing report, expected to be released later Wednesday, alleges abusive behavior toward subordinates including sexual harassment.


The inspector general's review, first reported by CNN, says Jackson drank alcohol, made sexual comments to subordinates and took the sedative Ambien while working as White House physician. The watchdog also found that Jackson mistreated subordinates and "disparaged, belittled, bullied and humiliated them."

Jackson denied the allegations, saying Democrats were "using this report to repeat and rehash untrue attacks on my integrity."

"I'm proud of the work environment I fostered under three different presidents of both parties; I take my professional responsibility with respect to prescription drug practices seriously; and I flat out reject any allegation that I consumed alcohol while on duty," he said in a statement. "I also categorically deny any implication that I was in any way sexually inappropriate at work, outside of work, or anywhere with any member of my staff or anyone else. That is not me and what is alleged did not happen."

Accusations against White House doctor Ronny Jackson
Citing interviews with dozens of former staff, the Pentagon inspector general said Jackson failed to treat his subordinates with dignity and respect. Witnesses described Jackson as screaming over trivial matters, displaying an explosive temper and focused on currying favor with the president.

In one incident, a female subordinate recounted how an intoxicated Jackson knocked on her door during a 2014 trip to Manila, Philippines.

"We asked the female subordinate what she was thinking when RDML Jackson knocked on her door in the middle of the night and said 'I need you,'" the inspector general report said. "She told us that 'when a drunk man comes to your room and they say, 'I need you,' your mind goes to the worst. I really felt it was a sexually inappropriate comment.'"

The woman told investigators that a Navy officer in Jackson's position "should not be knocking on my door drunk in the middle of the night telling me he 'needs me,' no matter what he needs me for," the report said.

The report also found that Jackson, who served as White House physician to Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama, "engaged in inappropriate conduct involving the use of alcohol during two incidents." The incidents involved two presidential trips, the Philippines in 2014 and Argentina in March 2016.

Jackson also used Ambien during long overseas trips, the report said. This did not appear to violate rules governing his position, but some witnesses told the inspector general that his use of the sedative raised questions about his ability to deliver medical care to U.S. government officials given the side effects of the drug.

In his statement denying the allegations, Jackson said the inspector general report "has resurrected those same false allegations from my years with the Obama administration because I have refused to turn my back on President Trump. Democrats are using this report to repeat and rehash untrue attacks on my integrity, so I want to be clear."

Jackson said that his entire professional life has been defined by duty and service, including his time in the Navy and working for three presidents (he was in the White House medical unit in the George W. Bush administration).

"I have not and will not ever conduct myself in a way that undermines the sincerity with which I take my oath to my country or my constituents," he said.

During the Trump administration, Jackson was known for declaring that the president was in "excellent" health despite his statement that Trump needed to lose weight because he was nearly obese.

Trump nominated Jackson to be his secretary of veterans affairs in 2018, but Jackson withdrew his nomination following accusations of drinking on the job and overprescribing medication to patients.
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I should be a two-star general by now, yet here I am with you schmucks.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoOskie said:

I should be a two-star general by now, yet here I am with you schmucks.
Do you also run a taxpayer-funded pill mill and have no self-awareness?




oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

GoOskie said:

I should be a two-star general by now, yet here I am with you schmucks.
Do you also run a taxpayer-funded pill mill and have no self-awareness?






Those were political charges from a political investigation. Even despite that, they found his occasional ambien use on long trips did not violate any policy.
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Should've had these fine people investigating.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MTG is the epitome of GOP decorum. Too bad she wasn't around when Obama had the temerity to eat mustard or wear a tan suit.




Of course, it's important to note "both sides" for the assiduous conservatives on BI, so I will also recognize Jon Fetterman dresses like a slob. After all, it's not hypocrisy if you can squeeze in a bothsidesism.
Lets Go Brandon 18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Republicans in North Carolina are running a candidate for governor who wants to go back to when women couldn't vote.

Is North Carolina now in play for Biden?

https://www.threads.net/@bidenharrishq/post/C4MJWRNv0Hd/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==



Must suck to be so easily propagandized
https://media.tenor.com/uARaKFpSkaMAAAAC/anger-management-jack-nicholson.gif
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mark Robinson, Republican candidate for governor, wants to go back to when women couldn't vote so he can rescue them. My bad. I thought he was saying something reprehensible but it was just stupid. Hard to tell with MAGAts.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

MTG is the epitome of GOP decorum. Too bad she wasn't around when Obama had the temerity to eat mustard or wear a tan suit.




Of course, it's important to note "both sides" for the assiduous conservatives on BI, so I will also recognize Jon Fetterman dresses like a slob. After all, it's not hypocrisy if you can squeeze in a bothsidesism.
Some liberals view avoidance of blind tribalism as bothsideism. Heaven forbid one recognizes that many of the faults lie, even if in different degrees, on both sides. The only way to avoid that is to only find fault on one side. Tribalism apparently is the only acceptable form of participating in politics for white as snow and pure liberals on BI..
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

MTG is the epitome of GOP decorum. Too bad she wasn't around when Obama had the temerity to eat mustard or wear a tan suit.




Of course, it's important to note "both sides" for the assiduous conservatives on BI, so I will also recognize Jon Fetterman dresses like a slob. After all, it's not hypocrisy if you can squeeze in a bothsidesism.
Some liberals view avoidance of blind tribalism as bothsideism. Heaven forbid one recognizes that many of the faults lie, even if in different degrees, on both sides. The only way to avoid that is to only find fault on one side. Tribalism apparently is the only acceptable form of participating in politics for white as snow and pure liberals on BI..


Bothsidesism leads to awful false equivalencies and in an attempt to be "unbiased" the media has decided to normalize abhorrent GOP behavior and actions and reacts with hyperbole to comparatively minor Democratic issues. This is why the pitchbot guy is so funny - because it's true.

EDIT: more on bothsidesism.

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will Andy Ngo report on this murderer who was Chairman of a local Young Republican group or does Andy Ngo only report on crimes from immigrants and LGTBQ people?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al.com/news/2024/03/north-alabama-man-charged-with-murder-has-ties-to-state-republican-politics.html%3foutputType=amp
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shockingly honest statement from a GOP senator. GOP politicians consider "governing" to be too Democrat-like and would rather do nothing ever.


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The moment where Chip Roy finally realizes the GOP is a joke with no intention to govern. Other than lowering taxes for their donors, they have never had a legislative agenda.


concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

MTG is the epitome of GOP decorum. Too bad she wasn't around when Obama had the temerity to eat mustard or wear a tan suit.




Of course, it's important to note "both sides" for the assiduous conservatives on BI, so I will also recognize Jon Fetterman dresses like a slob. After all, it's not hypocrisy if you can squeeze in a bothsidesism.
Some liberals view avoidance of blind tribalism as bothsideism. Heaven forbid one recognizes that many of the faults lie, even if in different degrees, on both sides. The only way to avoid that is to only find fault on one side. Tribalism apparently is the only acceptable form of participating in politics for white as snow and pure liberals on BI..

The two party stranglehold on US power is a massive problem, and there is no way to break it unless someone proposes a strategy as a 3rd party President, runs, and wins.

We've never heard of anyone doing so, and therefore all 3rd party candidates can only play spoiler.

In such a climate, we should only choose the lesser of two evils. Currently, that is the DNC over the RNC.

Even if a third party candidate proposed a new party structure, US citizens would not understand. Sad, but true. Massive amounts of citizens cannot understand the obvious facts surrounding Trumps incredible deficiencies as a politician, how are they going to understand the problem with the 2-party system?

"I'm a Republican."
"I'm a Democrat."
"I'm an Independent."
….this is all wrong thinking!
People should not BE! They should rationalize policies and who reflects ones they favor, and then vote accordingly.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?

sonofabear51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
***? Jackass!!
Start Slowly and taper off
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Shockingly honest statement from a GOP senator. GOP politicians consider "governing" to be too Democrat-like and would rather do nothing ever.

It will be a pathetic irony, when/if Trump is re-elected and GOP accuses Dems of being obstructionist because they won't get on board with the crazy they start generating and whole dismantle of the American system while padding the nest of their donor class. Suddenly the GOP will be all action again.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:



It's really weird when the least Christian people tell us what God wants? Please illuminate me. How do you know what God wants? Does he speak to you? Tell me exactly what he said? Or are you a Biblical scholar? Can you tell me the clear non-subjective text upon which you base your understanding of God's want? Is that text indisputable and consistently applied both in the Bible and in your application of faith and politics? Do you follow everything in the Bible if that is your basis for policy? Most importantly, why in a land defined by the most monumental and transformative advancement of nations to be a country by and for the people and by the people, and has a central pillar the separation of church and state, do you evoke God and have YOUR interpretation of God, ignoring all other faiths and "the people," as a basis for OUR laws?

Conduct yourself in private life by your tenants in faith, conduct yourself in government as a REPRESENTATIVE of the Constitution and the people checking your God belief at the door. You are a conduit of others not a conduit of ego and the voice in your head that you call God.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Shockingly honest statement from a GOP senator. GOP politicians consider "governing" to be too Democrat-like and would rather do nothing ever.

It will be a pathetic irony, when/if Trump is re-elected and GOP accuses Dems of being obstructionist because they won't get on board with the crazy they start generating and whole dismantle of the American system while padding the nest of their donor class. Suddenly the GOP will be all action again.
I'm guessing that while the Democrats will be obstructionist, the bigger issue is that moderate Republicans won't go along with proposals from the Crazies and the Crazies won't go along with proposals from the RINOs.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think President Biden will be reelected but if Trump wins, I predict 2026 will be the bluest wave we've seen yet.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

chazzed said:



It's really weird when the least Christian people tell us what God wants? Please illuminate me. How do you know what God wants? Does he speak to you? Tell me exactly what he said? Or are you a Biblical scholar? Can you tell me the clear non-subjective text upon which you base your understanding of God's want? Is that text indisputable and consistently applied both in the Bible and in your application of faith and politics? Do you follow everything in the Bible if that is your basis for policy? Most importantly, why in a land defined by the most monumental and transformative advancement of nations to be a country by and for the people and by the people, and has a central pillar the separation of church and state, do you evoke God and have YOUR interpretation of God, ignoring all other faiths and "the people," as a basis for OUR laws?

Conduct yourself in private life by your tenants in faith, conduct yourself in government as a REPRESENTATIVE of the Constitution and the people checking your God belief at the door. You are a conduit of others not a conduit of ego and the voice in your head that you call God.
The scripture is sufficient.

If the scripture is an opus composition written by Beethoven, ignorant non-Christians who are not truly familiar with the gospel think they understand Beethoven by listening to a second-grade orchestra playing one of his composition. Just because someone is playing the composition poorly does not degrade the worth of the composition.

Also, even though you seek to lecture about the Constitution, I don't think you yourself understand the Constitution. The establishment clause does not prohibit legislators bringing their faith or their experiences as legislators. Every single person, including an atheist, will inevitably bring the totality of their faith, experiences, etc. in everything they do. What the constitution prohibits is the establishment of a religion by the state or the state itself favoring one religion over another (including non-religion). It does not prevent legislators from bringing their faith as they assess and vote on laws. Atheists may bring their faith as they vote with their secular views. All you need to do is look at the SF supervisors to see how much atheism defines what laws they push. That does not mean that SF itself is violating the establishment clause.

Sorry, but people who do not understand the constitution lecturing others about constitution is just a pet peeve of mine.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I gotta give the GOP credit - Trump has endorsed a gay senate candidate in ultra-conservative Ohio which is quite a risk. Hopefully this shifts a changing attitude toward queer people and a general openness toward high quality individuals, whatever their race, gender, sexuality.



Or maybe not.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

blungld said:

chazzed said:



It's really weird when the least Christian people tell us what God wants? Please illuminate me. How do you know what God wants? Does he speak to you? Tell me exactly what he said? Or are you a Biblical scholar? Can you tell me the clear non-subjective text upon which you base your understanding of God's want? Is that text indisputable and consistently applied both in the Bible and in your application of faith and politics? Do you follow everything in the Bible if that is your basis for policy? Most importantly, why in a land defined by the most monumental and transformative advancement of nations to be a country by and for the people and by the people, and has a central pillar the separation of church and state, do you evoke God and have YOUR interpretation of God, ignoring all other faiths and "the people," as a basis for OUR laws?

Conduct yourself in private life by your tenants in faith, conduct yourself in government as a REPRESENTATIVE of the Constitution and the people checking your God belief at the door. You are a conduit of others not a conduit of ego and the voice in your head that you call God.
The scripture is sufficient.

If the scripture is an opus composition written by Beethoven, ignorant non-Christians who are not truly familiar with the gospel think they understand Beethoven by listening to a second-grade orchestra playing one of his composition. Just because someone is playing the composition poorly does not degrade the worth of the composition.

Also, even though you seek to lecture about the Constitution, I don't think you yourself understand the Constitution. The establishment clause does not prohibit legislators bringing their faith or their experiences as legislators. Every single person, including an atheist, will inevitably bring the totality of their faith, experiences, etc. in everything they do. What the constitution prohibits is the establishment of a religion by the state or the state itself favoring one religion over another (including non-religion). It does not prevent legislators from bringing their faith as they assess and vote on laws. Atheists may bring their faith as they vote with their secular views. All you need to do is look at the SF supervisors to see how much atheism defines what laws they push. That does not mean that SF itself is violating the establishment clause.

Sorry, but people who do not understand the constitution lecturing others about constitution is just a pet peeve of mine.
Um, I understand your faith, the Bible, and the Constitution very well. I also know the holier than thou tone you always strike and the assumed expertise you feel you wield over others (consistently confusing not understanding or agreeing with others with your own smug self belief in your intellectual superiority). I also am aware of the facts of what you wrote versus the subjective opinions you interjected and the present status of multiple court cases threatening the boundaries of church state separation as part of a multi decade endeavor by Christian nationalists and the risks it poses to all Americans (including Christians).

There is huge difference between having your education and life experience informing your decision making, versus subjugating your reason and decision making to pre-existing doctrine and ancient texts and your INTERPRETATION of those in service of a god you think exists and know. And even more difference when making performative gestures of faith in acts of legislation that are insincere, irrational, not actually faith based, but satisfy appearances to a faith based constituency that you control with bigotry, fear, and telling them what their faith means.

You informed me of nothing in your post that I have not known for decades. And it is patently absurd to suggest that if you are an atheist it is defining what laws you push and also a violation of establishment clause. Atheism is not a religion. It is a non-acceptance of other's god claim. That's it. Silent on everything else. It is not a religion and it holds no set of beliefs to define "what laws you push." The ignorance here is yours. You don't actually know what atheism is, and you think non-belief is a belief.

Let me help you out: What is atheism?
OsoDorado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

I gotta give the GOP credit - Trump has endorsed a gay senate candidate in ultra-conservative Ohio which is quite a risk. Hopefully this shifts a changing attitude toward queer people and a general openness toward high quality individuals, whatever their race, gender, sexuality.
It is nothing more than opportunism on Trump's part. Trump's only requirement for an endorsement is complete loyalty.

The gay men that back Trump are still going to have to tolerate/support Trump demonizing them every time he's in front of a Christian Nationalist group, for example. Crazy that they don't even mind ....

Here's another prominent gay Trump supporter:

First Page Last Page
Page 94 of 105
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.