RE: Democratic National Convention (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/30/2016 1:10:09 PM)

pftttt stein has more chance.




ifmaz -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/30/2016 1:13:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

pftttt stein has more chance.


[image]https://media.giphy.com/media/ImPu4mEs3RY8o/giphy.gif[/image].

(link again here)





Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/30/2016 1:17:57 PM)

damn... good gif....I have to steal that
sorry polls arent convincing me of anything this far out.. Id rather see more real education on the issues
talk to me in october.




ifmaz -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/30/2016 1:19:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

damn... good gif....I have to steal that
sorry polls arent convincing me of anything this far out.. Id rather see more real education on the issues
talk to me in october.


By October the aforementioned non-crazy man should be in the debates which will make things super-interesting.




Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/30/2016 1:39:51 PM)

I dont think trump will be at the debates.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/30/2016 2:32:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
LMAO @ Change the goalposts, dont forget women presidents are not a novelty to anyone living outside the US.
Also listen closely to the actual definition of her historical step, its NOT a "goalpost" move.
She became the first woman nominated for the presidency by a major party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/hillary-clinton-makes-history.html
I would rather it was someone else, but it aint.


It's been changed to major party as I noted in the post you're replying to.

The "historic" part of this is being trumpeted to sway voters, just like in 2008 when the media went nuts over the historic nomination of a black candidate (even though he was far from the first black candidate to be nominated, he was the first to be nominated by a "major" party).

While I'm not saying there's anything not historic about her (or Barack) being the first nominated by a major party, I AM saying that being an argument to get others to vote for her (or Barack) is vacuous at best.

Furthermore, if you vote for or against Hillary because she is a woman, or you voted for or against Barack Obama because he is black, you have lengthened the time frame before MLK's dream can be achieved.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/30/2016 2:36:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I dont think trump will be at the debates.


But, he did say the "aforementioned non-crazy man should be in the debates." [Italics mine]




Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 12:08:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
LMAO @ Change the goalposts, dont forget women presidents are not a novelty to anyone living outside the US.
Also listen closely to the actual definition of her historical step, its NOT a "goalpost" move.
She became the first woman nominated for the presidency by a major party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/hillary-clinton-makes-history.html
I would rather it was someone else, but it aint.


It's been changed to major party as I noted in the post you're replying to.

The "historic" part of this is being trumpeted to sway voters, just like in 2008 when the media went nuts over the historic nomination of a black candidate (even though he was far from the first black candidate to be nominated, he was the first to be nominated by a "major" party).

While I'm not saying there's anything not historic about her (or Barack) being the first nominated by a major party, I AM saying that being an argument to get others to vote for her (or Barack) is vacuous at best.

Furthermore, if you vote for or against Hillary because she is a woman, or you voted for or against Barack Obama because he is black, you have lengthened the time frame before MLK's dream can be achieved.


And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.
Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck


Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.





DesideriScuri -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 12:42:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.


Never said you didn't. However, the "historical" context of both elections was used, is being used, and will be used in the media in support of Hillary.

quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck


Yet, when candidates are pushed using historical context based on genitalia or skin color, it only adds to the racism that is still around. I truly believe you're wrong that it's as strong as ever, though.

quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.


I see. So, you replied to a post with a response that doesn't have much at all to do with that post. Maybe you are that confused.




BamaD -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 12:50:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.


Never said you didn't. However, the "historical" context of both elections was used, is being used, and will be used in the media in support of Hillary.

quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck


Yet, when candidates are pushed using historical context based on genitalia or skin color, it only adds to the racism that is still around. I truly believe you're wrong that it's as strong as ever, though.

quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.


I see. So, you replied to a post with a response that doesn't have much at all to do with that post. Maybe you are that confused.


I have heard, from a woman who used to live there that racism is worse in Canada than the U S. Of course it could be she lived in a bad pocket in Canada. Also my 3rd wife went to Detroit and said she saw more racism in one weekend than she had in 40 years in NC. I guess since I have lived in the south for the last 35 years I think it is getting better because I grew up in the north which was far more racist.




Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 1:03:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


I have heard, from a woman who used to live there that racism is worse in Canada than the U S. Of course it could be she lived in a bad pocket in Canada. Also my 3rd wife went to Detroit and said she saw more racism in one weekend than she had in 40 years in NC. I guess since I have lived in the south for the last 35 years I think it is getting better because I grew up in the north which was far more racist.


Heresay, and thats all you ever had.
Detroit? isnt in Canada.
Detroit has thehappy notoriety of logging 316 murders and non-negligent manslaughters last year, with a rate of 45 per 100,000 people. That’s the highest of U.S. cities with more than 200,000 residents and 10 times the national rate.(2014)
Windsor which is the city across the river IN CANADA
Had three homicides that year, O manslaughters, 0 violence causing death and 114 Assaults against Non family members.
Now now I know you were attempting to use "racism" But ahem, as your ignorance cant tell the difference between the countries, I am not going to make it any worse for you.







Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 1:17:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.


Never said you didn't. However, the "historical" context of both elections was used, is being used, and will be used in the media in support of Hillary.
What you said was
quote:

Furthermore, if you vote for or against Hillary etc etc
Are you confused? I cant vote...


quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck


Yet, when candidates are pushed using historical context based on genitalia or skin color, it only adds to the racism that is still around. I truly believe you're wrong that it's as strong as ever, though.

dont believe everything you think, minorities are angry for a reason, and its more than just ignorance about blacks this time, its ignorance about all minorities.
The racism AND sexism IS worse, especially coming from the right, note the resurgence of white hate groups, just look at trumps hate comments, oh and David Duke inspired to run for senate again. Lovely
People screaming about BLM marching in protest of police brutality, but they thought it was ok the bundys were armed and took over a govmnt building





quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.


I see. So, you replied to a post with a response that doesn't have much at all to do with that post. Maybe you are that confused.

Have you heard of a throwaway? Ifmaz couldnt even name him, I knew he was talking about Johnson, my response was a throwaway line but no, its my belief at the moment that Trump will not get on a stage with Hils, so the crazy wont be there,








Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 2:46:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
have you watched this speech yet??? you can start about the three minute mark if you want to miss the intro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z7lN7nQjG0

Muslim Americans in the American Military who died in war? It means nothing to me. If they chose to join the military, they jolly well be prepared to sacrifice their life in war, after all, betrayal would mean, their military commander would just shoot them anyway for treason. (Okay, they would in my country's military, not sure about the US one)

And this dude is exaggerating. Trump wants to find a way to let harmless Muslims in and keep bad Muslims out.
Another exaggerated BS.
So if he was a good Muslim, he would have been able to enter America eventually, once they figure a better vetting process.



I wonder if this had been written about a non muslim soldier who died in combat, it would have gained more ire.





DesideriScuri -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 9:17:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And I have stated many times since 2008 Voting for a woman for that reason is stupid.
More than a few times, look up on my comments on campbell or Thatcher.
I would never vote for a woman because of her biology.

Never said you didn't. However, the "historical" context of both elections was used, is being used, and will be used in the media in support of Hillary.
What you said was
quote:

Furthermore, if you vote for or against Hillary etc etc
Are you confused? I cant vote...


You're the confused one, Lucy. Just so you know, Lucy, every time someone uses the word "you" in a response to one of your posts doesn't mean it's personal to you. "You" can be used in general terms. You, Lucy, must not have ever heard of that. [8|]

quote:

quote:

Please dont preach to me about MLKs dream. Racism is strong as ever. And its NOT because people are voting for women or black men.
Cheeky fuck

Yet, when candidates are pushed using historical context based on genitalia or skin color, it only adds to the racism that is still around. I truly believe you're wrong that it's as strong as ever, though.
dont believe everything you think, minorities are angry for a reason, and its more than just ignorance about blacks this time, its ignorance about all minorities.
The racism AND sexism IS worse, especially coming from the right, note the resurgence of white hate groups, just look at trumps hate comments, oh and David Duke inspired to run for senate again. Lovely
People screaming about BLM marching in protest of police brutality, but they thought it was ok the bundys were armed and took over a govmnt building


Ammon Bundy took over a government building, not "the Bundys."

The biggst reason people were screaming was because of what the BLM protesters were chanting, not that they were marching and protesting. Well, there is the little part about BLM protesting police brutality and racism when, as it turns out, the cops acted properly enough that charges have been dropped. Some people laughed at BLM for that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-seib/why-clinton-will-win_b_11279386.html
    quote:

    THE HISTORIC MOMENT. The 2008 campaign was shaped in part by the historic opportunity to elect the first African American president, and in 2016 the prospect of the first woman president will certainly motivate many voters (men as well as women). Some Republican women and others who might not particularly care for Clinton are likely vote for her for this reason. The question is, how many? A larger number, particularly among Democrats, will be extraordinarily enthusiastic participants in the election process, egged on by the misogynistic comments that Trump is almost certain to keep making during the course of the campaign. Whatever voters’ feelings about Clinton herself, the idea of a woman as president will do much to shape the election results.


quote:

quote:

Oh, and btw, when I said that I dont think donald will be at the debates, because only HE will make it interesting. It has nothing to do with Johnson.
But Im so Sorry Im not as confused as you think I am.

I see. So, you replied to a post with a response that doesn't have much at all to do with that post. Maybe you are that confused.
Have you heard of a throwaway? Ifmaz couldnt even name him, I knew he was talking about Johnson, my response was a throwaway line but no, its my belief at the moment that Trump will not get on a stage with Hils, so the crazy wont be there,


Regardless of your belief of Trump not attending a debate, Trump being there or not has absolutely nothing to do with a non-crazy man being at the debates.




Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (7/31/2016 9:28:48 AM)

Im sorry , when you are responding ONLY to my post. I do take it that YOU means me.
Lots of people do, it seems. Maybe I need to write to Oxford or Websters, that You doesnt mean You anymore, its always generic.
If you want to be persnikkety, go right ahead, Im in the right mood for that kind of idiocy
By the way, I completely understand that my comment had nothing to do with a non crazy man
I didnt say it did, its you thats been having the conniption




DesideriScuri -> RE: Democratic National Convention (8/1/2016 5:55:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Im sorry , when you are responding ONLY to my post. I do take it that YOU means me.
Lots of people do, it seems. Maybe I need to write to Oxford or Websters, that You doesnt mean You anymore, its always generic.
If you want to be persnikkety, go right ahead, Im in the right mood for that kind of idiocy


Aw, bless your heart.

Q: How many Lucy's does it take to screw in a lightbult?
A: Just one. She just has to hold the bulb up and the whole world revolves around her.

quote:

By the way, I completely understand that my comment had nothing to do with a non crazy man
I didnt say it did, its you thats been having the conniption


Thanks for admitting you're just posting irrelevant crap.




Lucylastic -> RE: Democratic National Convention (8/8/2016 4:59:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


The call has gone out, from the DNC, on Craigslist. They're looking for up to 700 "seat fillers" for the last night of the convention.

They're paying $50.00 per person.

I suck at math but I ran the numbers: the convention gavels in, no later than 17.00 hrs. It goes until at least 23.00. Six hours (being very conservative) at $50.00 Isn't even $10.00 hour. They're bitching about $15.00 per hour?

Show some integrity and lead by example. Oooops! I forgot. We're talking about dumbocrats, here.



Michael



an update on this bs

Breitbart Duped by Fake News (Again)
The conservative "news" site cited a fake news article to back up claims of paid protesters at Trump rallies.

On 1 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable Breitbart web site published an article based on "conservative icon" Sarah Palin's quipping that "paid anti-Trump protesters show presidential candidate Donald Trump is creating jobs even before taking office," and quoting her as follows:

“We’ve been telling [Trump] he should hold his rallies at construction sites. You know protesters aren’t going to show up at a job site,” said Palin. “Did you know some of those rebel rousers, they’re actually paid protesters. So there you go, not even president yet and our guy’s already creating jobs.”
Of course, such a quip wouldn't be funny — or relevant — if paid protesters weren't actually showing up at rallies for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. And as usual, Breitbart had a problem with not being able to demonstrate that what they were reporting was actually true.

In support of the claim that the Trump campaign was being targeted by "hired gun" protesters, Breitbart cited a Fox News report about a Craiglist ad supposedly offering "paid positions to protest Trump rally" and an ABC News report about a protester who allegedly answered such an ad and was paid $3,500 for his efforts:


http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-news-again/




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 13 [14]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875