OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
All right, 0910. Accept my apology. I really want everyone to like their nickname. I know poopslinger loves his. After all, who proudly slings more BS around here than him?
No one has worked harder to earn their nickname than Blabbersnot. Dude just never shuts up (or carries a hanky). Cletus created his own username so my adding "stupid" to it is simple redundancy. And botchedbraintransplant, like it or not, is stuck with his nickname; once the damage was done not even modern medicine could make it right.
As for Hark_The_Smell, who cares about him? It's almost like he's not even a tangible entity around here but rather a malodorous vapor trail or ghost. Eerie.
Now I know when I stoop to the level of others I can sound a bit juvenile. But I would argue that the most sophomoric practice on this message board is when someone hurls a dull and innocuous put-down my way and that's followed by all of the other inbred cousins in predictable fashion hitting the Like button in unison. It doesn't bother me really but it's only about as amusing as a wayward pack of toothless Chihuahuas nipping at my ankles.
If you want the cliff notes version, he called you a chihuahua.
Chihuahua seems like a weak, potentially racist, choice for an insult. Poodle would have been a better choice or he could have gone exotic and said Pomeranian. Both of those suggest a more feminine and homosexual comparison which makes for a better insult. Just another example of how bad he is at this.
Are we sure it's a "him"? Seems more feminine like one of those chicks that were crying and screaming at the sky after the election.
Michelle Obama?
Last edited:
Sophomoric but I'll allow it.
Omg “cock remora”. Thats gold jerry
Did y’all know that the flippin senators arent trusted with any beverages on the senate floor other than milk (for ulcers back in the day) and water? That tells me a lot.
Did y’all know that the flippin senators arent trusted with any beverages on the senate floor other than milk (for ulcers back in the day) and water? That tells me a lot.
I changed it to "crotch remora" which has a nicer ring to it and, I think, probably better reflects 0910's all-purpose versatility.
First POTUS to EVER attend the March for Life event ... continuing to strengthen his bond with evangelical and anti-abortion voters. Smart move.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-becomes-first-president-to-speak-at-march-for-life
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-becomes-first-president-to-speak-at-march-for-life
Genius! Can you imagine how difficult it must be to pander to evangelicals? It's not something that just anyone can do.
And, it also guarantees that they'll vote Republican for a change! He's like a sage! lol
Yepp its what won him the election imo and prob will the next.
Its also proof that evangelicals as a whole are shameless hypocrites and that we have a president who favors legislating religious beliefs into law. He might as well wipe his ass with the constitution on the stage there.
yep. and there are certainly lmillions of non-evangelical pro-lifers who love this .... i have several in my own family. it will matter in November.
Well... it's like this... "pro life" is a deception. That term is a lie. That implies that whatever/whoever opposes "pro-life" must be "pro-death."
Personally? I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control... at all. But, women purge fertilized eggs during their menstrual cycles ALL THE TIME! They're not serial killers, are they?
The complexity of abortion is just that- very complex. I would always prefer to encourage a woman to carry their pregnancy to term and put the child up for adoption. That way all the southern evangelicals can adopt more black children.
I also equally oppose executions. Pro-Life people who would love to throw the switch on an electric chair are, in my opinion, hypocrites.
As long as he pretended that the Bible condoned it (and you can make the Bible condone almost anything), they'd follow him everywhere he would lead them. They already do.
It's one of the most entertaining aspects of American culture.
Remember when the worst thing you could say about our corrupt president was that he was a dookie?
I guess a douchebag and a dookie are pretty much neck and neck...
If the saying is true -- You're known by the company you keep -- then I would say you're right on the mark.
I’m no evangelical and I’m not here to defend them, but I don’t understand what point you are trying to make.
It's a political move for sure. Just as much as a democratic who stands up for the poor woman who accidentally got pregnant and wants to get out of it
Yup. "Pro Life" is a crock, just like the term "progressive". As if not not being "Pro Life" means you're "Pro Death". And "Progress" towards what exactly?
Two birds of the same feather.
That its hypocritical for evangelicals to support trump. Do i need to go into details?
If what Bolton is saying is true, and he has proof of it, then it's a tough look for senate Republicans. I still don't think many, if any, are going to vote for his removal but the optics of it are pretty bad if there is hard proof.
Some people don't care. I know a lot of regulars here will say even if there is proof that they don't think it's something remotely close to removal. That's fine - I see that side of it.
To me, there's gotta be a line between being President vs. looking out for your own personal interests and using your office to go after your enemies. If he did the latter, which it really appears he has, to me that's grounds for him to be out.
I don't see them ever voting for removal. The question is, will this cause enough senators to flip and ask for witnesses to be called. I doubt it, but this certainly makes it interesting.
I'm on the fence with this. I think it's obvious he ****ed up, but does it rise to the level of removal? I'm not sure. Removing a president who was voted into office is a huge deal and something that shouldn't be taken lightly. My concern though is that if Trump beats this, he will feel like he can do anything he wants to. No one will be able to stop him at that point, because the dems will have zero capital to go at him again.
This is a fair take I think.
The reality seems to be that few voters or viewers, citizens are very engaged or paying attention to impeachment now.
The media will really hammer on senators: "why didn't they listen to Bolton?" But:
1) people that pay attention realize Bolton has an agenda against DJT, too
2) the media has lost a ton of credibility regarding being objective and unbiased in the time DJT has been president, so their influence with non-partisans is nearly zero.
It’s my understanding that Chief Justice John Roberts can demand witnesses be called and the GOP couldn’t stop him without a 2|3 votes to stop it.
I haven't heard that, but I haven't been paying much attention to it. I couldn't imagine Roberts doing that, because he's always been very concerned about the SC looking biased and doing something like that would look like a bias. I would think he would just leave it up to the senate.
Can someone explain to me why the Senate refuses to call new witnesses? What are the arguments against doing so?
Unfortunately we seem to be at a point where his supporters would say “okay well if he did something wrong he must have had a good reason and i’m okay with it”. Remember when trump said he could gun down people in times square and his followers would still support him? Lol. Well here we are. No shit, there is absolutely nothing he could be found guilty of at this point that would turn his followers and therefore the gop against him. Nothing.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Class of 2025 Recruiting Thread (Updated 11-24: Isaiah Campbell tweet)
- Latest: Lee Wardlaw
-
-
THI Podcast: The Football Show | Criswell, What Fans Want | BC and More
- Latest: andrew jones