OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Gated communities can be pretty nice. They provide you with security and keep unwanted people out. I just wonder if you have to pay a homeowner's association fee for that protection.
LOL. This is why it's hard for some people to take "progressives" seriously. Saying a paint scheme is aggressive and makes it feel like a police state is just dumb. There are plenty of legitimate issues for these people to be upset about. This isn't one of them.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/ame...police-cars-causes-panic-pride-104855538.html
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/ame...police-cars-causes-panic-pride-104855538.html
Without looking up the date, I feel confident in saying they weren't in office during my lifetime.
I just hope annual means longer than the earth's rotation. Otherwise, somebody is being bullshitted.
Yeah, I'm not picturing Trump as a big Christian. Have we ever really had a president that is a hardcore Christian though? I know they all say thank God and some go to church, but I don't recall any in my lifetime that was such a believer that everything they did was driven solely by their faith.
Your original question said nothing about during your lifetime. You added that later on in the post. Maybe you just worded the post poorly? It happens to all of us.
Woodrow Wilson- the absolute worst president in history in my opinion- was VERY religious/pious/Christian/whatever.
Yes, I added a qualifier. I just assumed everyone who had good reading comprehension skills would understand what I meant. I guess it was a mistake to assume something like that. That being said, my response was mostly said in jest. There really wasn't a reason to feel slighted or insulted by it. But since we are on the subject, I'd love to hear about all of his policies that were driven solely by his faith.
It's definitely my opinion WW was easily the worst president in the history of the US.
You realize that qualifier wasn't a question, right? It was a comment made later in the post. The question is what I highlighted. Do you know how I knew what part was the question? It was the sentence that ended with a question mark.
Last edited:
Right, I added a qualifier to the question. You wouldn't ask a separate question just to add the qualifier. You just add it in reference to the first question. Example:
Is it raining? I don't know if it is where you live. The obvious qualifier there was adding where you live, which is referring to the original question. I wouldn't say "Is it raining? I don't know if it is where you live, so is it raining there?" That's duplicative and unnecessary. But again, it was just a joke so no need to get all excited.
No, you really didn't. You made an observation about your lifetime. You asked a question, I gave you an answer, and then you decided to get all bitchy about it. You must still be butthurt from the vaccination and AOC vs. Tea Party discussions.
Interesting. Let's review what actually happened.
1. I asked a question. Then added a qualifier to that question.
2. You misunderstood what I was saying and your reply reflected that you misunderstood.
3. I responded with a simple joke.
4. You felt the need to get combative about the joke and then continued to be combative when it was further explained.
5. You decided to make a personal insult (saying I'm "butthurt," which seems to indicate you might be somewhat homophobic), which means that you know you lost and I won.
6. You referred back to another discussion to try to take attention off of the fact that you lost the battle.
7. The previous discussion was based on opinion, so there was no need for anyone to be upset about it since there was no winner or loser. Unfortunately you chose to be upset about it.
In the future, please try not to use personal insults and just stick to debating a topic. That way I won't have to Van Damme you.
I feel like I should be taking notes
Can I copy yours? Not really feeling like going to class today...
That isn't what happened at all. Maybe that's what you meant to happen, but you just worded your post poorly. A random statement, two sentences after asking the question, isn't qualifying said question. You tried to use a different example earlier in a poor attempt to defend your prior post, but said post was not the same as the second example.
Look, all you had to do was clarify your earlier mistake when I answered "James Madison", but you couldn't do that because you're still so butthurt from looking like a fool during our prior conversations. Well, that and a massive authoritarian.
Yet another personal insult from you. Not only did you get the events wrong again, you once again tried to hide that by switching the conversation. You've been Van Dammed twice today. It's obvious you can't engage in a conversation like an adult who doesn't result to personal attacks. I'll do you a favor and let this be the last time I Van Damm you, but it appears I won't be able to debate you in the future because you don't want to be civil.
Sorry, I would have figured that you would take being called a "massive authoritarian" as a compliment because you are indeed a massive authoritarian. Don't want to be called a massive authoritarian? Well, that's easy. STOP ACTING LIKE A MASSIVE AUTHORITARIAN. LOL!
Yeah, @tarheel0910, quit acting like a massive authoritarian, would ya?
Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party is now leading all other political parties in the UK.
https://news.yahoo.com/brexit-party-opens-lead-european-elections-poll-154527248.html
For those of you who don't keep up with world politics, Farage was the leader of UKIP when Brexit passed, but eventually left the group and has now condemned them as the party has turned more racist.
https://news.yahoo.com/brexit-party-opens-lead-european-elections-poll-154527248.html
For those of you who don't keep up with world politics, Farage was the leader of UKIP when Brexit passed, but eventually left the group and has now condemned them as the party has turned more racist.
After listening to the AG this morning there will be a lot of screaming at the sky today. That damn tick tock clock is broke as hell.
He just discussed that there was no evidence of collusion or obstruction. Said Trump was offered but declined any executive privilege in redactions and that the Trump team fully cooperated with Special Counsel. Heads are exploding. Dems are scrambling like roaches. Two years of this crap has resulted in nothing.
I would be willing to bet a former poster is in deep depression because ole Bobby 3 Sticks came up with nothing.
Not exactly. Barr reported that Mueller and his team didn’t think they had enough to warrant charges of collusion. But they did say there was evidence. The report is going to show that the trump campaign legally worked with Russia to win the 2016 election. It’s not a good look but his fans won’t care.
Just started, you? I'm going on so far what the AG has said this morning.
Bits and pieces while Ubering to the ball game. It’s shaping up like Mueller didn’t bring charges because of the precedent you can’t indict a sitting president. Looks like there was coordination, albeit legal, with the Russians. Mueller knows his limitations so he’s kicking this to congress.
Page 9 states clearly that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with or conspired with.......
Pretty cut and dried in that one statement.
390 more pages to read hoss.
Honestly though, would you even care if the Trump campaign worked with Russians to torpedo Hilary?
It would bother me, does it bother you that the investigation was based on unverified information paid for by the DNC? And again that statement says all there needs to be said, Hoss.
It’s also not cut and dried as you claim. They state there was communication and memebers lies about it to the special counsel.
It's clearly not illegal to talk to people from another country, and you didn't bother to answer my question.It’s also not cut and dried as you claim. They state there was communication and memebers lies about it to the special counsel.
Similar threads
