ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

I know, right. Half the country believes systemic racism exists today and that you can choose your gender. Some people…
Half the country doesn't believe you can choose your own gender. I believe a tiny % of people have some confusion around gender. And I don't "believe someone can choose their own gender", but don't-ask-don't-tell is fine w me if someone wants to crossdress. It doesn't hurt me unless that person makes it awkward somehow.

And i don't even know what you mean by "systemic racism", so i'm, not sure I believe that either.
 
Half the country doesn't believe you can choose your own gender. I believe a tiny % of people have some confusion around gender. And I don't "believe someone can choose their own gender", but don't-ask-don't-tell is fine w me if someone wants to crossdress. It doesn't hurt me unless that person makes it awkward somehow.

And i don't even know what you mean by "systemic racism", so i'm, not sure I believe that either.

Then I guess you aren't the half I'm talking about. Good for you.
 
Well believing the creation account is a metaphor is very liberal and progressive among your kind.

Not super clear but I think I get what you're saying.

More like laughing…and some dancing.

But this one needs explanation.

1 - Who is laughing and dancing?
2 - Why are they laughing and dancing?

If you're not familiar with the term "whistling past the graveyard", I'll explain it to you. When someone is scared or nervous about something, they will often attempt to downplay their fright and act as if they are confident and unafraid. Maybe you were confused by the colloquialism I used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
Half the country doesn't believe you can choose your own gender. I believe a tiny % of people have some confusion around gender. And I don't "believe someone can choose their own gender", but don't-ask-don't-tell is fine w me if someone wants to crossdress. It doesn't hurt me unless that person makes it awkward somehow.

And i don't even know what you mean by "systemic racism", so i'm, not sure I believe that either.
Ok, just their leaders do and insist anyone disagreeing is a bigot, and you still vote for them.
 
Things are not going well. Inflation is crippling average citizens. You can argue about who or what is to blame, but it doesn't matter. Inflation is killing us. And, mortgage rates are rising all the time (maybe a housing correction is a good thing). Crime is WAY up and it's not getting addressed, let alone solved.

Democrats have had all three for two years and things are much worse. I don't see Democrats fixing anything, they never do! I don't think Republicans have any answers, either. But, it's pretty typical that when a party has all three and everything kinda goes in the shitter, there's a switch.

I believe that Walker will win in GA. I believe Kari Lake will win in AZ. I don't have a list of all the Trump candidates, but I believe most of them will probably win. Trump is helping to get HIS candidates elected. And, it goes pretty deep into smaller government roles and offices, too. He's here to stay. The GQP couldn't get rid of them if they wanted to.


I disagree completely. Trump has energized the GOP like no other candidate since Reagan. If those establishment heads were in control it wouldn't do anything. I think this Trump/MAGA shit is going to be around for a long time. You have stalwart, old-school conservatives like Liz Cheney leaving the GQP. They let him in and they can't get rid of him.
I wouldn't say they let him in. He bull-dozed his way in because the base decided he was the best candidate in the primary. Cruz came in second, and they don't really like him all that much. The GOP establishment was utterly rejected by GOP voters. That's what happened.
 
Don't you think there are wyomingans/Wyomingites who could sit this one out because Liz was booted in favor of a maga? It won't matter in that state, but could matter in ohio, pa, nc, etc.
Not addressed to me, but no, absolutely not. Liz is very unpopular now among Republicans.
 
Where is the security cam footage, and why did the alarm not go off?

 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2 and bluetoe
You're gullible, misinformed and confused about what half the country believes and doesn't.

But I bet you consider yourself to be dialed in on what the country believes? lol. We're going to see exactly what over half the country believes next week.

I'll believe what I want to believe and I'll allow you to do the same, ok pumpkin?
 
It's hilarious! It doesn't get much more patriarchal than that. "Men are are MORE POWERFUL."

God is a He because men are more powerful. That's the best yet.
I was going to let it go, but I can't resist.

First of all, I never said God was a 'he'. That's just a typical case of you and some others here habitually and dishonestly putting words in others' mouths to change the argument into something you can rant on so impotently. Rhetorically, that's called a strawman and if you couldn't create one you'd never be able to argue any of your usual insanity. I REFERRED to God as 'He', and then made it clear that it doesn't matter what you refer to Him as, since we don't really know the nature of Him. If we don't know His nature, how can we assign a gender to Him and therefor WHAT DOES IT MATTER how we refer to Him.

Then you stupidly mock me explaining why the masculine is used to refer to God. You say my thinking is 'patriarchal' because that's the current buzzword that the woke virtue signalers are seeking to annihilate such that anyone who doesn't react negatively to patriarchy is some Neanderthal. But if you had the mental chops to do so, you'd ask yourself why so many things ARE patriarchal and why we continue, habitually, to use terms associated with patriarchy.

The answer is the same one I've already given. In most cultures, the leader is male because the family units are led by males. Why would that be? I'm going to let @strummingram strain his brain and try to figure out why so many things associated with power are linguistically oriented toward masculinity and patriarchy, including the concept of God Almighty. It's obvious, but somehow I have the feeling he'll try to dance around it. I eagerly await his next strawman.



I never said God was a he because men are more powerful. I said we end up REFERRING to God traditionally as a he because men are more powerful. You condescend to tell me we think in language, but then you're too dense to realize that you end up arguing against yourself. Simply referring to something is not the same as understanding something. Unless you're a virtue-signaler in need of a molehill to die on, that is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Archer2
Where is the security cam footage, and why did the alarm not go off?


It is pretty baffling that there is no security footage and that Secret Service have not submitted a report for the public.

Smells fishy to say the least.

But it shouldn't matter but another week. Once the GOP takes the House, Pelosi will be relegated to a powerless position and hopefully see that her days in Congress (and on this earth) are numbered. I hope it's extra painful for her.
 
1 - Who is laughing and dancing?
2 - Why are they laughing and dancing?

If you're not familiar with the term "whistling past the graveyard", I'll explain it to you. When someone is scared or nervous about something, they will often attempt to downplay their fright and act as if they are confident and unafraid. Maybe you were confused by the colloquialism I used.
my first thought was maybe just whistling isn't enough to overcome the fear.

Of course it might just be a Halloween thing and the deceased are the ones rising out of their graves and holding their annual dance party. I like this one almost as much as the first one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2 and bluetoe
Half the country doesn't believe you can choose your own gender. I believe a tiny % of people have some confusion around gender. And I don't "believe someone can choose their own gender", but don't-ask-don't-tell is fine w me if someone wants to crossdress. It doesn't hurt me unless that person makes it awkward somehow.
if it was actually that way, there would be no problem. But the dems don't settle for just 'don't-ask-don't-tell ' these days. Also, you know it goes beyond cross-dressing but nice try minimizing it all.

They enthusiastically push the issue just because the issue is a liberal darling. It's only a matter of time before they are pushing for the first gender-changed president of ambiguous sexuality, just because they are that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: randman1
It is pretty baffling that there is no security footage and that Secret Service have not submitted a report for the public.

Smells fishy to say the least.

But it shouldn't matter but another week. Once the GOP takes the House, Pelosi will be relegated to a powerless position and hopefully see that her days in Congress (and on this earth) are numbered. I hope it's extra painful for her.
As soon as she loses that gavel Biden will name her ambassador to Italy. Mark it down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
Do this (but gimme the heads-up stocks-wise.)
Ya, great. Except anyone that has even a moderate amount invested in the market index funds would have seen losses in excess of that measly $2000 if those huge companies are taking a collective $400B hit to their bottom lines (which their valuations are based on).

Also all the people in those companies that would have been laid off as a result of cost cutting measures to try to make up some portion of that $400B would almost certainly prefer their salaries to a measly $2000.
 
Ya, great. Except anyone that has even a moderate amount invested in the market index funds would have seen losses in excess of that measly $2000 if those huge companies are taking a collective $400B hit to their bottom lines (which their valuations are based on).

Also all the people in those companies that would have been laid off as a result of cost cutting measures to try to make up some portion of that $400B would almost certainly prefer their salaries to a measly $2000.

R.319f2d308582f19d239b57cc5c93e57a
 
Ya, great. Except anyone that has even a moderate amount invested in the market index funds would have seen losses in excess of that measly $2000 if those huge companies are taking a collective $400B hit to their bottom lines (which their valuations are based on).

Also all the people in those companies that would have been laid off as a result of cost cutting measures to try to make up some portion of that $400B would almost certainly prefer their salaries to a measly $2000.
Don't show up in here destroying these liberal pipe dreams with facts!
 
Ya, great. Except anyone that has even a moderate amount invested in the market index funds would have seen losses in excess of that measly $2000 if those huge companies are taking a collective $400B hit to their bottom lines (which their valuations are based on).

Also all the people in those companies that would have been laid off as a result of cost cutting measures to try to make up some portion of that $400B would almost certainly prefer their salaries to a measly $2000.
it's amazing how unaware the people are who are spending our money. When you take money and then return it in some form, there is always less there than to begin with; and the effect on peoples' lives is at best minimal and often negative, and that always includes minimizing what they have. It isn't magic, but some legislators act like it must be.
 
This on its own is election fraud. No democrat party win in any election that concerns these issues can be said to be legitimate.

don't you love it when some here scoff at the idea that 1984 can happen even while it is happening?.
 
I was going to let it go, but I can't resist.

First of all, I never said God was a 'he'. That's just a typical case of you and some others here habitually and dishonestly putting words in others' mouths to change the argument into something you can rant on so impotently. Rhetorically, that's called a strawman and if you couldn't create one you'd never be able to argue any of your usual insanity. I REFERRED to God as 'He', and then made it clear that it doesn't matter what you refer to Him as, since we don't really know the nature of Him. If we don't know His nature, how can we assign a gender to Him and therefor WHAT DOES IT MATTER how we refer to Him.

Then you stupidly mock me explaining why the masculine is used to refer to God. You say my thinking is 'patriarchal' because that's the current buzzword that the woke virtue signalers are seeking to annihilate such that anyone who doesn't react negatively to patriarchy is some Neanderthal. But if you had the mental chops to do so, you'd ask yourself why so many things ARE patriarchal and why we continue, habitually, to use terms associated with patriarchy.

The answer is the same one I've already given. In most cultures, the leader is male because the family units are led by males. Why would that be? I'm going to let @strummingram strain his brain and try to figure out why so many things associated with power are linguistically oriented toward masculinity and patriarchy, including the concept of God Almighty. It's obvious, but somehow I have the feeling he'll try to dance around it. I eagerly await his next strawman.



I never said God was a he because men are more powerful. I said we end up REFERRING to God traditionally as a he because men are more powerful. You condescend to tell me we think in language, but then you're too dense to realize that you end up arguing against yourself. Simply referring to something is not the same as understanding something. Unless you're a virtue-signaler in need of a molehill to die on, that is.
I'm not reading all that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Heels Noir
It is pretty baffling that there is no security footage and that Secret Service have not submitted a report for the public.

Smells fishy to say the least.

But it shouldn't matter but another week. Once the GOP takes the House, Pelosi will be relegated to a powerless position and hopefully see that her days in Congress (and on this earth) are numbered. I hope it's extra painful for her.
the bigger question to me is, where was the security? Security seems to be strangely absent in certain events. The article mentions Epstein, and I can't believe that those charged with guarding him would take a nap while that extremely high-profile subject who had previously attempted suicide was hanging himself.
 
I wouldn't say they let him in. He bull-dozed his way in because the base decided he was the best candidate in the primary. Cruz came in second, and they don't really like him all that much. The GOP establishment was utterly rejected by GOP voters. That's what happened.
They absolutely let him in and they even enjoyed courting him when it benefited them. Now, he's turned their party into his own circus. Some of them are doing their best to smear his name and reputation, but it's too late.
 

Serious question: why do we not just shoot these people?

This “seeking asylum” bullshit loophole needs to be rectified by Congress once the GOP gets control back. I advocate for major changes to the 1980 Refugee Act.
 
They absolutely let him in and they even enjoyed courting him when it benefited them. Now, he's turned their party into his own circus. Some of them are doing their best to smear his name and reputation, but it's too late.
Bull-crap. They wanted Jeb Bush and acted like he had it in the bag.
 
You have to make it into a YouTube video if you expect strum to tune in.
unless the post is about how there's no physical difference between races, and between male and female, or about why the Cheshire cat is smiling at Alice when she's ten feet tall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: randman1
Bull-crap. They wanted Jeb Bush and acted like he had it in the bag.
Is that what "they" did??? You are a regular johnny-on-the-snot when it comes to "they" aren't you? I keep forgetting you have the real sources to discredit all of what "they" want everyone to believe.
 
Is that what "they" did??? You are a regular johnny-on-the-snot when it comes to "they" aren't you? I keep forgetting you have the real sources to discredit all of what "they" want everyone to believe.
Anyone following the story at the time, the fundraising and establishment endorsements knows this. You are just an idiot, it seems.

Once Jeb was out, Rubio was the favorite as Kasich was flaming liberal hard for some reason and so without much support. Finally the push was for Cruz but it was too late.
 
This on its own is election fraud. No democrat party win in any election that concerns these issues can be said to be legitimate.

that is interesting. Remind me again who was in charge 2018, 2019 and 2020 when this all got started?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT