Please tell me this is a joke.

You want to support the prime antagonist of the first amendment?

I am not going to worry though because De Santa’s is making the same mistake as others - playing to the Trump base

 

if I were in the state of Wyoming I would vote Conservative Republican and conservative are not synonyms. Yes I am a gay person and I do live in Houston I am no longer pursuing the career in law enforcement you're not mistaken that's just an update. No I generally don't vote anything across the board.

team six marriage seems to be used as a whip to try and beat people into submission. As far as my support for the Republicans that I support I would be more open to alternatives but the choices typically between the Republican and a Democrat. And really the more important things regarding voting for me have to do with fiscal issues.

overturning Ruby Wade is something I genuinely don't care about. I didn't think you overturning of a OvH is a bit far-fetched. I don't know how they would even go about doing that. First you have to have an appointment with a complaint so how do you complain about two people getting married how is that involve the court?

Generally with Republicans I stand with them with regard to Second amendment rights though they don't have a very good track record of supporting that. And I don't really agree with their fiscal policies but I don't think there is bad as the Democrats so mostly my position is Democrats are worse. Republicans are simply the lesser of two evil sometimes not all the time.

I didn't. I argued that it was edited.

well it's not that people are near mortals that they believe any of this crap and how easily they're manipulated.

You need to take the approach to all political debates and discussions and campaign speeches as though the person saying things is lying to you because they are. So if you believe the lies then I have that strength over you. Even if they're telling the truth you default to the position that they're lying that way when it's found out that it's true you can just say okay well that was true and nothing is lost.

glad you like it it was a rather funny troll.

Trolling the splc I don't think was the original intent they're just profoundly stupid so they're easily trolled. The whole thing was really quite funny

The connection to the Egyptian frog-headed monster was a complete accident.

 

School matron.

4

 

Thanks for posting! It's a little amusing, if it wasn't sort of depressing, but Cheney looks like the winner in that bunch.
Even die hard Trump fans should see that.

 

You all have been after Trump for about six years. Do you really believe the public is so stupid that they don't remember your lies and that your narrative has been the same for that long? It's at the point where your continued demonization of Trump is backfiring, and you don't know it. Trump will decimate your candidate if he runs and gets the nomination.

 

Oh! Dear!

Rose coloured glasses

 

e howard hunt's deathbed confession is applicable. there is a strange event involving the secret service guy assigned to cover that angle ....

The Conspiracy Blog | Conspiracy Theories and Alternative News Source - JFK Assassination: Secret Service Agents Told To Stand Down

at any rate, oswald pulled the trigger, but could not possibly have acted alone.

an old friend from several now defunct forums believed this story to be true ....

Dr. Mary's Monkey (myneworleans.com)

 

Well I just watched this twitter clip, holy ****!!! If Liz doesn't win against these Trump nutz, the world has gone mad. Stark raving mad.

 

You've used terms I'm unfamiliar with.

What is "team six marriage" and how is it used to beat people into submission?

Why do you refer to overturning Roe v. Wade as Ruby Wade?
Note btw, I didn't specifically ask you about it, but then again I suppose it is the example of the recent ruling that places OvH at equal risk of being overturned.
Not to worry though, since you don't see anyway that could possibly happen then I find myself reassured that at least that matter is settled law.
Although I do have to wonder a little bit. Apparently there was a case brought before the court involving two people getting married that was sufficient to get the court involved once before: hence the precedent. Ah, wait, nope - your reassurances seem to me to simply lack any significant depth of reasoning, so my question remains. But possibly you've already answered my question if it's your position that the institution of marriage is not something you'd ever be interested in participating in.

You didn't use the word fake, but you implied that the video was edited such that the result did not represent the positions of the candidates: hence fake.
Then, when you were provided with a link to the entirety of the debate you crawfished letting everyone know that you are in fact just not interested.

And you have strength over me because you don't believe the lies of politicians?
And to somewhat paraphrase what seems to be your advice, you propose that the wisest approach with respect to ascertaining the veracity of a politician's statement or assertion is simply to assume that it is a lie?

So, when Beto tells you, you're ******n right he's going to take your AR15, well, you take that at face value, don't you?
How about when Trump told you you were going to have the very best health care?
Did you just assume that was a lie?
Hence when nothing was ever done about it, you were proven correct and just laugh at the rubes like me that point it out?
What about when Trump said that the election was rigged?
Did you default to your position of assuming that was a lie?

Regarding your avatar, I suppose since you seem to be possibly unfamiliar with my positions regarding anything that remotely smells of white supremacy I'll have to point out that it was sarcasm when I used the word nice. Either you 1) are aware of its connection with right wing white supremacists and therefore use it to identify with them, 2) are aware of its connection and find some satisfaction in using it when it in fact represents a position to which you do not in fact adhere to, or 3) are unaware of its connection and just thought it was kinda cool and representative of the general stupidity that discussing politics around this place can be sometimes. Not sure which.

Why do you think the SPLC is stupid? Do you think the descendants of slaves have an equal playing field in the US?

Anyway, thanks for your response.
What occupation are you going for after having abandoned law enforcement? Politics? Hahaha....

 

these are errors I made and sometimes they can come off as a bit cryptic I don't think they were in this case because you seem to understand and respond to my post with no issue.

I think this is mostly just scaremongering. They can overrule all sorts of things that they're probably not going to overrule.

this wouldn't be the same in this case the only way this comes before the court is if a state makes a move to try and limit or interfere with the marriage of two people and in which case it would seem very obvious that there is precedent to not ruin the favor of the state.

I don't normally fall victim of political hackery nice try though.

I didn't imply you inferred.

I will not defend against whatever straw man you're trying to fabricate here.

I didn't ask for a link I didn't need a link. All I said was the video I watched was edited and it clearly was. You inferred a whole bunch of nonsense that and helped you create straw man fallacies and that's your business.

I'm not sure what I crawfished on there was no deal or agreement struck between me and anybody so as I understand the verb to crawfish it doesn't even apply linguistically here.

I'm not interested in your paraphrasing or whether or not it's correct because whatever straw man you're trying to fabricate doesn't matter. I know what I said so I don't need it paraphrased.

I'm not going to entertain any of this garbage I've already answered it.

If you're going to ask me over and over if I really meant what I said and expect me to reassure it every single time you ask that's not happening.

I'm not running a daycare here.

I'm not interested in what you read on the splc website this is a propaganda organization and I don't value their opinion even when people pretend like it's their opinion.

the fact that they are so easily trolled and they produce propaganda.

And I would answer this if I thought you cared but I prefer not to give out personal information to people who seem to be spiteful.

 

popscott said: ↑
Please show us a clip of Trump saying "or thought of saying 'Hang Mike Pence'"

So he never used those words, you should stop saying he did then.

 

Don't verbal me Elde Fruit. I never said he did. I guess I will now see your grovelling apology?

 

Untrue.......!!!! This is what you said:

Then, when I gave you the entire thing to watch, you announced your lack of interest, which make what you post pretty invalid, yes?

 

No it's true.

 

"English" must have a different meaning over there.

 

I use this handy dandy cheat sheet in times like these.

 

Yeahhhhh brehhhhhhh.

 

Ironic

 

Ho, ho, ho. Her oath was to the constitution not to the leftist **** show trying to do away with it.

 

You
Bush Lawyer said: ↑
Sure, he never used the words

YOU posted the clip..........

 

I never said he did use those words. In fact, I specifically said he did NOT use the words.

I guess a grovelling apology is beyond you. No surprise.

 

Oh my apologies then you surely agree people should stop with the canard and even insinuating he did. Correct?

 

As I said....while he never said the words, his words implicitly endorsed their words.....as per the video I posted. Apology accepted. Don't verbal me again please.

 

My comment was about the text that I bolded. My point is that name calling is for children.