de·plor·a·ble

✔️ Donald J. Trump

adjective
deserving strong condemnation.

Similar:
✔️ disgraceful
✔️ shameful
✔️ dishonorable
✔️ disreputable
✔️ discreditable
✔️ unworthy
✔️ shabby
✔️ inexcusable
✔️ unpardonable
✔️ unforgivable
✔️ reprehensible
✔️ despicable
✔️ abominable
✔️ base
✔️ sordid
✔️ vile
✔️ hateful
✔️ contemptible
✔️ loathsome
✔️ offensive
✔️ execrable
✔️ heinous
✔️ odious
✔️ revolting
✔️ unspeakable
✔️ beyond contempt
✔️ beyond the pale
✔️ egregious
✔️ flagitious
✔️ asshole

I am just glad the depicted abomination of a pink-orange-yellow human counts as "white", hypnotic cat t-shirt notwithstanding. Last thing I would want to get into is a colour dispute though so never you mind my overzealousness. Can un-pink/yellow/orange coloured people be either woke or unwoke, or are they woke by default, implicitly? Wokespeak is a foreign language so I have some trouble with the concept.

It was originally built as a sports arena with hotel and shops, and had all sorts of problems in construction and early on. After the sports backing eventually went tits up after 10 years or so, it was sparsely used for a few other things before it finally ended up being used for this abomination.

Another disturbing abomination. Nice job.

"Yes, it's an abomination....and I love it."

The Song Remains the Same

I don't wanna be a 24kt dick here, but I fucking HATE seagulls.

Seagulls and Canadian Geese are both the assholes of the avian world and fuck 'em both. God was in a shitty mood when he created these flying abominations. Oh, and pelicans. Yeah, fuck them, too. A pelican took a shit the size of a dinner plate on my (at the time) brand new '97 Z-28 Camaro. Right on the fucking windshield, too. I mean, one minute, I'm enjoying myself at the beach and the next minute I'm looking at a greasy green rotten-fish-reeking shit covering half my goddamn windshield. I have no clue what pelican anatomy looks like, but they must be 99% rectum and 1% ill intents. What a wonderful time to discover I was outta windshield wiper fluid, too. Two little squirts and then my wipers were just smearing semi-digested fish across my windshield. Oh, that FUCKER! I know which one did it, too -- it was the one sitting on a post like three feet away laughing at me. Oh, sure, I could have beaten it to death with a tire iron, but then *I* would have been the one in trouble. You can't ticket a pelican for taking a massive dump on your car, but beat one to death with 2 feet of galvanized steel and you're the one who has to explain it all to a judge.

People feed those rancid fuckers, too. I hope the next cocksucker who tosses a Ritz in the direction of a pelican is staring at the sky with mouth agape when the damned thing decides to void its football-sized ass. That'd be karma right there, and fuck all the people right now going "that's not how karma works!" They can just start putting their Dharma-believing asses to work cleaning my windshield with their tongues.

Please forgive me: I've been drinking for the last six hours and I've gotten maybe a little feisty.

The abomination that comes from this unholy union will make the Antichrist look like Mr. Rogers.

You blew it when you stood me up on our date, don't come beg/crying back now...no love for you.

I began with the congressional bill you claimed didn't exist by stating...
"Congress had nothing to do with authorizing this."
...and followed with multiple articles that delineated exactly what the republican led congress did.

Can you dispute a single fact presented, or do you simply dismiss the fact checking entirely because it's not from a source politically right of faux news?
Left "leaning" compared to your normal hyper right opinion articles is hardly disqualifying without contradiction, and I don't accept the label anyway. Calling out Republicans for lying 3-1 over Democrats is actually right leaning when you consider they lie >5-1. (For example: Tax breaks don't benefit the rich, I didn't pay off my mistresses and those payoffs I made 2 weeks before the election to hide years old events had nothing to do with the election, my campaign had no contact with Russia, a republican pedophile is better than an upstanding Democrat, homosexuality is an abomination unless we get caught at the gloryhole, .....I could go on forever VS 'I didn't see an issue using a personal server for government emails', and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".)

Right thing for who? Not for regional stability.

First time I actually noticed a dolly zoom, was Poltergeist (Spielberg's, not that new abomination) the scene where the hallway stretches out as the mom is trying to get to the daughter's room.

KILLING IN THE NAME OF silencing that fucking white saxophone abomination.

Sorry @ant, please don't take this personally.

Fuck you, Michael Bay. You're an awful filmmaker and you haven't managed to elicit 0.01% of the emotion I felt watching the animated Transformers movie as a kid and while that was basically just an extended toy commercial, at least it had... Christ, I dunno... balls? A sense of fun? A stupidly awesome 80s soundtrack?("Dare" is still on my running playlist and it brings a smile to my face every goddamn time)

Eh, screw this noise, I'm off to watch the Thor trailer again.

Tl;dr: there isn't enough alcohol on the planet to make me enjoy this abomination.

They were all low quality. Alas, proper english also equals proper english lawyers quashing their intellectual property, except for the translated clips.

I have also found this to be true with subtitled music videos in proper english. If someone puts a massive Spanish subtitle on the video, it survives the english censorship and video removal.

English videos in non english formats survive. They are the fittest and therefore your proper english, following this path, will also die out and morph into INGSOC as long as the abomination of intellectual property law scourages our world.

Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?

How about Deuteronomy 17:
Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Or Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Or Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers. The reason offered for that barbarism? Two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods.

Christians consistently ignore the inconvenient parts unless they work to further their current prejudices. I've never heard of a Red Lobster or Gap being firebombed for selling shellfish or mixed fabrics, but gays..stone em, burn em, bomb em, and stone them some more over the same instructions they otherwise ignore. Mowing your lawn on Sunday is actually worse than homosexuality by my reading, but no one gets harassed for that.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......