OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[bluetoe]

Clever, but the difference is neither I nor my fellow libs have ever said anything remotely like that - whereas I was responding to direct comments in each of my "you seem to be saying" observations.

and those direct comments, as I said, carried no connotations until you yourself assigned them. Are you still going to imply that the commenter was trying to say what you had in mind?

BTW I have no idea - nor do I care - if she sucked Willie Brown's dick. It is rather interesting that MAGAs seem obsessed about it, though.

Obsessed? It's obsession when you believe that the person on the verge of becoming our president got into that position by sucking dick and not by being otherwise qualified? Oh wait, I forgot for a moment that you're a liberal. Of course you see no problem with an unqualified dicksucker becoming president.

To make her behavior worth comparing with what Trump brags about, Kamala would have had to force Willie to let her suck his willy, against his wishes. Possible, I suppose, but rather hard to imagine.

lame whataboutism much? If we are talking about someone becoming the leader of our country, and both candidates happen to have have questionable sexual tendencies, I'm going with the one who has actually demonstrated the ability to lead us and not the one whose only qualification might come in handy only if we need her to convince Putin to relax a little.

 

[bluetoe]

Awww. Look who's swallowed the Marxist Kool Aid.

Isn't that cute.

if an observation is cute, then I made a cute observation. I believe I made an astute observation. I don't toss out terms like commie and Marxist because of what anyone else says. I've been calling people here commies before Trump ever uttered the word Marxist. I guess you aren't bright enough to understand that overstatement (slight as it might be) is a way to emphasize.

And what needs to be emphasized is the fact that she has stated, just for example, that a level playing field doesn't mean equal opportunity, it means equal outcome...and that her goal is to see this come about. And she was rated the most left-leaning pol in Congress. She might not be a textbook Marxist, but my saying she is, is much less ridiculous than you trying to deny it.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Why??????

Did we elect her????????

And you guys think I'm off my rocker that there's been a massive, concerted coverup as to what's really been going on.

View embedded media

I assume those that are always worried about a certain "eXiStEnTiAl tHrEaT tO dEmOcRaCy" are up in arms about this as well, right? Someone never elected/appointed presiding over a cabinet meeting? Seems like throwing democracy out the window.

 

[joeydavid]

Why??????

Did we elect her????????

And you guys think I'm off my rocker that there's been a massive, concerted coverup as to what's really been going on.

View embedded media

Did we already forget about the failed former president's pet project to stop online bullies? Of course she couldn't even stop her SINO so it's ended up being another failed joke while on office.

 

[bluetoe]

I agree with you on this one. But you MAGAs don't seem to care when Trump does the same, over and over.

So, yes, Kamala's change on fracking and abandonment of Medicare for All bother me. Moreover, what good has it done her? You still call her Marxist.

see my previous post, and then give me examples of Trump doing 180's anywhere near as prolifically as Harris. Don't forget the border stance, BTW. As I have pointed out a number of times, a campaign ad in the previous election had her clearly stating that NO ONE WOULD BE TURNED AWAY who came to our border. She was literally throwing open the door to illegals.

 

[bluetoe]

Please.

Please? Please show me I'm wrong. Or just rest on please, I understand your position.

 

[bluetoe]

I assume those that are always worried about a certain "eXiStEnTiAl tHrEaT tO dEmOcRaCy" are up in arms about this as well, right? Someone never elected/appointed presiding over a cabinet meeting? Seems like throwing democracy out the window.

how does that double standard phrase go, 'rules for thee but not for me'? The threat to our democracy is apparently a one-way street unless you're a dem. The most applicable point ever made here is that if you want to know what the dems are up to, just see what they are accusing the other side of.

 

[strummingram]

LMAO. You have been rendered completely mindless by your need to virtue signal. You always do the same thing, you maintain a semblance of reason up to a point and then you go off the deep end....ignoring facts, mischaracterizing intent, making outlandish claims, etc.

But hell maybe you're right. I think I'll run down to the local slave market and pick up a slave or two just for the weekend....hope all the really good ones haven't already been taken.

Let's have an encore of what you claim to believe... It deserves one:

"I actually appreciate the fact that slavery has been a largely accepted institution up until the time that it no longer needed to exist. Know why? Because if not for the practice of slavery, the civilizations that led to our even being able to have this conversation would not have ever existed in such a way. And yet, I can commiserate with the plight of the slave....assuming that the slave wasn't happy with his position, which many were."

 

[prlyles]

Those of us who haven't allowed ourselves to become hysterically sensitized to the mere mention of the word slave can relax and ponder wistfully...or even pointedly as Robinson did....how nice it might be to have someone do your heavy lifting for you. I actually appreciate the fact that slavery has been a largely accepted institution up until the time that it no longer needed to exist. Know why? Because if not for the practice of slavery, the civilizations that led to our even being able to have this conversation would not have ever existed in such a way. And yet, I can commiserate with the plight of the slave....assuming that the slave wasn't happy with his position, which many were.


I can't believe you posted that, wait, yes I can.

 

[prlyles]

Let's have an encore of what you claim to believe... It deserves one:

"I actually appreciate the fact that slavery has been a largely accepted institution up until the time that it no longer needed to exist. Know why? Because if not for the practice of slavery, the civilizations that led to our even being able to have this conversation would not have ever existed in such a way. And yet, I can commiserate with the plight of the slave....assuming that the slave wasn't happy with his position, which many were."

Blueballs, do you mind if I quote you? I know a lot of people would never believe someone said that in 2024. I won't use it unless you give me the OK, I can certainly understand if you are ashamed of it.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Blueballs, do you mind if I quote you? I know a lot of people would never believe someone said that in 2024. I won't use it unless you give me the OK, I can certainly understand if you are ashamed of it.

Oh no @bluetoe , a bunch of online randos and bots may think lowly of you! However will you go on?!!

 

[heelmanwilm]

You are, of course, absolutely correct on this point. It is just one of the things wrong with the way history is filtered in our system. Even here, on this very land, there were slaves of the same race as their "owners" long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. But, speaking of this larger universe of human existence ignores the reality of the American experience. More importantly, it ignores the teaching and concept of slavery "historically" in our country, particularly with the recent adopting of things such as the fictional work known as the 1619 Project.

Thus, in America, any reference to slavery always and only means white men owning black men. Which is why it is so odd to me that it would be attributed to Robinson in making such statements. Other than the normal piling on that will be done by the media and the D's simply to win the gubernatorial election and hurt orange in NC, have there been any further legitimate developments proving one way or the other the truth of the alleged connection of the posts to him?

“Alleged connection” BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Dude wtf? A black man with identical stats, screen name, and email made the posts. Just what “legitimate developments” would you require to make the gargantuan leap of logic that it was him? Are you holding on to the possibility that someone traveled back in time with his info to make the posts?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Who cares?

 

[bluetoe]

Let's have an encore of what you claim to believe... It deserves one:

"I actually appreciate the fact that slavery has been a largely accepted institution up until the time that it no longer needed to exist. Know why? Because if not for the practice of slavery, the civilizations that led to our even being able to have this conversation would not have ever existed in such a way. And yet, I can commiserate with the plight of the slave....assuming that the slave wasn't happy with his position, which many were."

OK, thanks. You quoted it so we know you are capable of that. Are you capable of showing what I said that reasonable people might object to, and why that would be? I already know what you object to because the paragraph contains the words 'slave' and 'slavery'. I'm sure that must have set your ziz wheel off.

Maybe my problem is I don't have a ziz wheel.

 

[strummingram]

OK, thanks. You quoted it so we know you are capable of that. Are you capable of showing what I said that reasonable people might object to, and why that would be? I already know what you object to because the paragraph contains the words 'slave' and 'slavery'. I'm sure that must have set your ziz wheel off.

Maybe my problem is I don't have a ziz wheel.

Reasonable people? What are reasonable people?

You were eloquent... thanks for the insight on what you believe.

 

[bluetoe]

Blueballs, do you mind if I quote you? I know a lot of people would never believe someone said that in 2024. I won't use it unless you give me the OK, I can certainly understand if you are ashamed of it.

of course I don't mind. I wouldn't have said it if I minded having it quoted. But I'll ask you what I asked @strummingram. Are you capable of somehow expressing WHAT you think I should be ashamed of, and why?

Of course you can't, you're not intelligent enough to do so. All you can do is say 'that good' and 'that bad'. You know, like Orange Man bad. You're just a numbnuts.

 

[bluetoe]

Reasonable people? What are reasonable people?

You were eloquent... thanks for the insight on what you believe.

so then, the answer to my question is that you can quote me and be critical of what is quoted, but you have no idea why you're critical of it. Just what I thought.

Reasonable people are people who don't read into words what isn't indicated. Not you, in other words.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Who cares?

Exactly. I don’t. Except to seize upon an amazing ppportunity to ridicule a hypocrite politician. So I made one post which was genius in its cleverness then Left it. But here comes pooptard
To insinuate it isn’t him. Lol. Sorry I can’t let that pass. Not on my watch goddammit.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Exactly. I don’t. Except to seize upon an amazing ppportunity to ridicule a hypocrite politician. So I made one post which was genius in its cleverness then Left it. But here comes pooptard
To insinuate it isn’t him. Lol. Sorry I can’t let that pass. Not on my watch goddammit.

I missed the clever one. Direct me towards it. I’ll be the judge of that.

 

[bluetoe]

Oh no @bluetoe , a bunch of online randos and bots may think lowly of you! However will you go on?!!

like Lone Watie from 'The Outlaw Josie Wales', I will endeavor to persevere. Pray for me.

 

[bluetoe]

So I made one post which was genius in its cleverness then Left it.

Freudian slip? Funny, you don't look like a Marxist.

 

[heelmanwilm]

I missed the clever one. Direct me towards it. I’ll be the judge of that.

“He’s the black MLK”

Now not many people may appreciate the subtle double entendre at play here. Am I poking fun at blacks? Mlk? Robinson? All three? Hell it’s actually a triple entendre . Sometimes I amaze myself

 

[pooponduke]

“He’s the black MLK”

Now not many people may appreciate the subtle double entendre at play here. Am I poking fun at blacks? Mlk? Robinson? All three? Hell it’s actually a triple entendre . Sometimes I amaze myself

That makes a grand total of one. Don't break your arm.

 

[pooponduke]

“Alleged connection” BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Dude wtf? A black man with identical stats, screen name, and email made the posts. Just what “legitimate developments” would you require to make the gargantuan leap of logic that it was him? Are you holding on to the possibility that someone traveled back in time with his info to make the posts?

Exactly. I don’t. Except to seize upon an amazing ppportunity to ridicule a hypocrite politician. So I made one post which was genius in its cleverness then Left it. But here comes pooptard
To insinuate it isn’t him. Lol. Sorry I can’t let that pass. Not on my watch goddammit.

I didn't insinuate anything, I simply asked a direct question. CNN claims it was him due to matching a bunch of publicly available biographical data. Robinson has denied it. That tends to be in CNN's strong favor, but forgive me if I've learned one thing over the years and that is CNN's take on anything should be confirmed through other sources. They could tell me the next Pope was going to be Catholic and I'd still want to hear it confirmed through some other source. That's all I asked for because generally when stuff like this starts coming down, it launches an avalanche of other things. I'm not local, so all kinds of stuff may have been reported that I would not have heard.

Lastly, while Robinson may have said all kinds of stupid things over the years according to his local "fans" here, the thing to me that sets this apart is not just these apparent original statements, but the fact that he did all that and didn't address it in some fashion when he first launched his political career. There is no way that such a thing doesn't come out at some point. The internet lives forever.

 

[gunslingerdick]

He’s the black MLK”

Now not many people may appreciate the subtle double entendre at play here. Am I poking fun at blacks? Mlk? Robinson? All three? Hell it’s actually a triple entendre . Sometimes I amaze myself

 

[heelmanwilm]

 

[heelmanwilm]

I didn't insinuate anything, I simply asked a direct question. CNN claims it was him due to matching a bunch of publicly available biographical data. Robinson has denied it. That tends to be in CNN's strong favor, but forgive me if I've learned one thing over the years and that is CNN's take on anything should be confirmed through other sources. They could tell me the next Pope was going to be Catholic and I'd still want to hear it confirmed through some other source. That's all I asked for because generally when stuff like this starts coming down, it launches an avalanche of other things. I'm not local, so all kinds of stuff may have been reported that I would not have heard.

Lastly, while Robinson may have said all kinds of stupid things over the years according to his local "fans" here, the thing to me that sets this apart is not just these apparent original statements, but the fact that he did all that and didn't address it in some fashion when he first launched his political career. There is no way that such a thing doesn't come out at some point. The internet lives forever.

Didn’t address it? Was he gonna admit he likes tranny porn, nazis, and slavery before kicking off his political career? Seems like a bold move.

 

[bluetoe]

“He’s the black MLK”

Now not many people may appreciate the subtle double entendre at play here. Am I poking fun at blacks? Mlk? Robinson? All three? Hell it’s actually a triple entendre . Sometimes I amuse myself

^^^^^ find the subtle change

 

[blazers]

have there been any further legitimate developments proving one way or the other the truth of the alleged connection of the posts to him?

 

[prlyles]

Lastly, while Robinson may have said all kinds of stupid things over the years according to his local "fans" here, the thing to me that sets this apart is not just these apparent original statements, but the fact that he did all that and didn't address it in some fashion when he first launched his political career. There is no way that such a thing doesn't come out at some point. The internet lives forever.

Nobody has claimed the guy was smart. Don't you and the others get tired day after day having to defend this party? At what point do you say fvck it.

 

[prlyles]

I didn't insinuate anything, I simply asked a direct question. CNN claims it was him due to matching a bunch of publicly available biographical data. Robinson has denied it. That tends to be in CNN's strong favor, but forgive me if I've learned one thing over the years and that is CNN's take on anything should be confirmed through other sources. They could tell me the next Pope was going to be Catholic and I'd still want to hear it confirmed through some other source. That's all I asked for because generally when stuff like this starts coming down, it launches an avalanche of other things. I'm not local, so all kinds of stuff may have been reported that I would not have heard.

Lastly, while Robinson may have said all kinds of stupid things over the years according to his local "fans" here, the thing to me that sets this apart is not just these apparent original statements, but the fact that he did all that and didn't address it in some fashion when he first launched his political career. There is no way that such a thing doesn't come out at some point. The internet lives forever.

Nowhere else except here has anybody even questioned whether he said it or not. Yeah, I know you can find a website that you go to regularly to say differently. Once again, don't you ever get tired?

 

[nctransplant]

Nobody has claimed the guy was smart. Don't you and the others get tired day after day having to defend this party? At what point do you say fvck it.

Have you given any reason to vote for Harris other than orange man bad?

 

[prlyles]

Have you given any reason to vote for Harris other than orange man bad?

Orange man is so bad any decent person doesn't need any other reason. That was why I voted for Clinton in 2016 also. Yes, orange man is bad, very bad.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Have you given any reason to vote for Harris other than orange man bad?

1. She's able to speak in coherent sentences.

2. She looks good in her red stewardess uniform.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Speaking of Elon Musk, the first part of this video on his forays into politics is excellent

 

[gunslingerdick]

1. She's able to speak in coherent sentences.

#notsureifserious
#unburdenedbywhathasbeendone
#significanceofpassageoftime
#wordsalad

 

[nctransplant]

1. She's able to speak in coherent sentences.

2. She looks good in her red stewardess uniform.

You forgot about her many accents and the fact that she never really answers questions. You libs here and her are made for each other, neither of you answer anything and you all love sucking dick.

 

[blazers]

Probably next week, right?

 

[joeydavid]

see my previous post, and then give me examples of Trump doing 180's anywhere near as prolifically as Harris. Don't forget the border stance, BTW. As I have pointed out a number of times, a campaign ad in the previous election had her clearly stating that NO ONE WOULD BE TURNED AWAY who came to our border. She was literally throwing open the door to illegals.

1. Coal mining
2. The wall
3. Obamacare
4. Middle class tax cuts
5. Crypto
6. Manufacturing
7. TikTok
8. Abortion
9. Releasing his taxes
10. Eliminating all federal debt
11. Infrastructure

Should we go on? The dude has no morals, no values. He's really a very unintelligent simpleton; as he will say anything if he thinks he can make some money then does a 180 turn if the opposite can make him more money.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Probably next week, right?

View embedded media

This is the thing with Trump, FOX, and Republicans.

Think of it in terms of a betting strategy....

In those cases where you have the MSM on one side and Trump, et al, on the other, you get to place a straight-up bet on which side's account is more correct. You aren't told the issue, you just know they differ.

How do you bet?

I'm not saying the Trump/Republican/FOX narrative will always lose. I'm just saying that you should bet against them every single time.