Explain.
Exactly what is untrue?
You won't reply because you can't answer, and Trump hasn't given you an answer.
Weak and corrupt are Trump's traits, too weak to walk down a ramp, too weak to keep his lust for his young teenaged daughter private, too corrupt to beat multiple fraud charges, too corrupt to ever be connected to a charity ever again because of massive, pervasive frauds, his children too, his cabinet even more so.

There is none so blind as he who will not see, and you're hiding in the basement closet, eyes closed and blindfolded against seeing anything bad about Trump.

So ridiculously stupid and dishonest, Bob. Just dumb. I know you're incapable of investigating yourself, but you insist on spouting your ignorant theories as facts constantly knowing there are people here who will investigate and castigate you over your intentional dishonesty. Stop lying.

Kind of a generalization, their rules have clear gaps but I wouldn't go so far to say it protects white men over black children specifically.

It's a thankless job. Screw up once and you are castigated. Do it right a million times and no one notices.

To be fair, if she was not female or even if she was white, this would be crazy.

Obviously I have to take it with a grain of salt given the source and because she was posting these to 'anti-troll' people trolling her, but if I did the same thing I would be castigated. Even if I later pointed out I was just responding in a satirical fashion.

She is sorry about it and probably didn't mean it, but she was still wrong. The fact that we excuse it is partially a symptom of how pissed we are at Trump, which isn't a good reason to overlook this kind of thing.

Alrighty, so when challenged with an obvious flaw in your original post (ie. posting in a video about how the alt right trolls while using the exact same methodology), you change up the terms on engagement rather than answer the original criticism...

1. Short quip about how said boxed people are insane.
2. Go on about why said boxed people are mentally deficient, then crap on about Trump.
3. Get in to a pedantic explanation about the 50% figure and whether or not it was entirely accurate.

None of which addresses my original criticism and further goes to show that you are doing exactly what this video is talking about.

I don't give a fuck about Trump or his supporters, and while I do agree there are likely some racists/crazy people in the mix, I theorise that they mostly voted for him because he was different. Which is neither here nor there, the video is a smug left winger pointing out what a bunch of pointy headed gits alt right trolls are and you prove that the left is equally capable of being smug, pointy headed and trollish gits... = \

I don't disagree with your discontent re: the parlous state of affairs in the US at the moment, and I have a great deal of sympathy for American's who don't want that orangutan representing them. But if you (collective left, not you personally) want to try and occupy a high ground and dismiss the alt right, you need to actually live up to the standards you use to castigate people like Bk33.

The simple point is that you are not superior. You have made a lifestyle choice because you wanted to. You have no solid scientific evidence that food animals are fully sentient. Both dogs and pigs routinely fail self-awareness tests, they may be intelligent and able to learn, but they ARE NOT PEOPLE. Vegans want us to believe that eating a pig is tantamount to eating a 3 year old baby, and simply isn't. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the subject, but that is all.

Now to address your issue with how people treat vegans. I know that I have never went out of my way to lambaste a vegan for choosing to be vegan. I will, and have, severely castigate vegans who start telling me that they are superior to other people because they choose to not eat meat. How can you not see that having the attitude that you are better than someone else because of your choices is not the same manner of thinking that leads to church people condemning people for not following their ethos?

So, let me ask you, how many people have given you shit for being vegan out of the blue? For instance, you were minding your own business and eating a salad, then a person jumped in your face and said "How dare you eat that salad next to me?" I'm willing to bet you might have gotten some gentle ribbing if you went to a friend's barbecue and asked for a vegan option, but I doubt anyone got in your face about it. On the other hand, I have absolutely had more than one vegan get in my face and tell me that I am a murderer and a beast because I ate a hamburger at a desk across from them or sat down at a table with some brisket without making sure it wasn't a 'meat-free' zone.

The sheer chutzpah that most vegans have towards non-vegans is what makes them a target for ridicule. I get it, you think you are better than us, but we wouldn't care if you didn't feel the need to trot it out every five seconds.

@Xaielao - you probably would have said the same about the cultural revolution before it happened... oh it'll never work. And then it did and got completely out of control and caused immense suffering.

I know this is a generalisation of the Chinese, but i found them to be ... um... acquiescent? When i visited.

Pitting people against each other, empowering those who are most 'patriotic' and effectively encouraging them to castigate those who are not. It will almost certainly affect the educated, the intelligentsia first and foremost, painting them as enemies to the overwhelming poorly educated majority. Did they learn nothing during the cultural revolution, or is it an intentional purge? I hope to god nothing like that can happen again, but i feel this has the potential to get out of hand.

I really really hope that China sees protest and change in my lifetime. I loved their country and their people, but they are so badly oppressed.

Hey, thought you might be interested in this little moment of much-delayed sanity: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/backdown-on-internet-filter-plan-20121108-290qr.html

Still not perfect, but a step in the right direction.
In reply to this comment by Asmo:
>> ^kymbos:

@star69 - equating the act of a no-name comedian at a union event with the career-long actions of Tony Abbott is pathetic.
How has Gillard taken Australia 'so far backwards'?
Also, you would be able to downvote if you actually contributed something to this community.


I'm pretty sure he's referring to Gillard's comments re: libs attending the Allen Jones speech, castigating them for not getting up and leaving... In which case, the situations are analogous.

Data retention?

Compulsory internet filtering?

Two policies that forever damn Labor in my eyes. Two policies Gillard has not canned or dropped. I keep hoping Malcolm Turnbull get's up as leader of the opposition and wins the next election, but Abbott hasn't committed to pushing the fascist nanny state yet so I'll roll the dice on him...

>> ^kymbos:

@star69 - equating the act of a no-name comedian at a union event with the career-long actions of Tony Abbott is pathetic.
How has Gillard taken Australia 'so far backwards'?
Also, you would be able to downvote if you actually contributed something to this community.


I'm pretty sure he's referring to Gillard's comments re: libs attending the Allen Jones speech, castigating them for not getting up and leaving... In which case, the situations are analogous.

Data retention?

Compulsory internet filtering?

Two policies that forever damn Labor in my eyes. Two policies Gillard has not canned or dropped. I keep hoping Malcolm Turnbull get's up as leader of the opposition and wins the next election, but Abbott hasn't committed to pushing the fascist nanny state yet so I'll roll the dice on him...

>> ^KnivesOut:

Hey @A10anis, there's no need to get upset, certainly no reason to call names.
Maybe get some sunshine, whatever you gotta do.>> ^A10anis:
You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.



I apologize. Sometimes I get a little exasperated, forgive me.

Hey @A10anis, there's no need to get upset, certainly no reason to call names.

Maybe get some sunshine, whatever you gotta do.>> ^A10anis:
You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.

>> ^NetRunner:

Well, he does have to actually win the election to stay President -- being the incumbent doesn't mean he isn't in contention for the highest political position in the world. I'd like for there to be more good choices too, but it doesn't seem likely that the Republican party is going to provide anything like a good choice for the foreseeable future. At least right now the Democrats have somebody pretty good to put forward, not so sure the same will be true in 2016.
And yes, it is kinda pointless to post if you don't want responses. I can't even remember posting a video where someone didn't stop by to voice their disagreement with the message of the video, my posting of the video, my title/tags/channels, etc.
>> ^A10anis:
You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.


Pure semantics. Try referring back to my original comment. Read what it says, and try to understand that my contention referred to Romney and the other "contenders" - who fell by the wayside. I'll make it easy for you; There are NO contenders of any worth to take on Obama. There, you clear now of my initial meaning? I'm done, JEEZ.

Well, he does have to actually win the election to stay President -- being the incumbent doesn't mean he isn't in contention for the highest political position in the world. I'd like for there to be more good choices too, but it doesn't seem likely that the Republican party is going to provide anything like a good choice for the foreseeable future. At least right now the Democrats have somebody pretty good to put forward, not so sure the same will be true in 2016.

And yes, it is kinda pointless to post if you don't want responses. I can't even remember posting a video where someone didn't stop by to voice their disagreement with the message of the video, my posting of the video, my title/tags/channels, etc.

>> ^A10anis:

You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^A10anis:
I despair at the lack of serious contenders for the highest political position in the world. The fact that he is a mormon, should, given their tenets, automatically exclude Romney (unless we want to go back to the bronze-age, when religion dictated every facet of life).

There's a pretty serious contender on the ticket, actually.
Ever heard of this guy named Barack Obama?

You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.

Yeah, take that Will Smith and Oprah. God forbid you guys can become superstars and multi-millionaires. You have to "stay genuine", and never change, even if it means staying dirt poor or mediocre. Conforming to some vague notion of "blackness" is more important than personal achievement.

And fuck Obama too, and Ursula Burns, and any other black person with talent, drive and determination, who happens to have charisma and appeals to other races. And god forbid someone undergoes personal transformation and change to succeed, especially in a society where the chips are stacked against them on day 1. No, it's better to know one's place.

Yeah, Barack, Ursula, Will and Oprah, even though you guys are actually transforming what it means to be african american and black by kicking down barriers, so that black kids can feel they can do anything and be anyone, FUCK YOU.

Will, you should still be rapping about Philly with the other ol' skool rappers on tour on the c-circuit. Oprah, you should still be doing "who's the father!!" shows and competing with Jerry Springer and Maury. Ursula, wasn't middle management enough? And Barack my man, you did much more good as a community organizer.

C, your premise and line of thinking is ridiculous. Can you explain to me what role is acceptable for a black man? You castigate Will Smith for being weak then complain about Samuel Jackson and Denzel Washington? These guys aren't flava flav for gods sake.

Please forgive me for not seeing your sarcasm, if that's what this is. >> ^chingalera:

When it comes right down to it, who really gives a fuck why Will Smith back-slapped a reporter, or why the reporter decided to kiss him. All that really matters is that Will Smith, one of the whitest black men in America, will never get any revenue from me, as I plan to download the film from many of my friends around the world who won;t shed a tear when Hollywood dies.
He can join the other list of sell-out negroes in Hollywood who have taken the $Bait$ and become masters of a weak stereotypical representation of the African-American male.
There's the ultimate hero negro: Denzel Washington, Jim Brown, (AKA, The Victim of Society Negro
The Superhero Negro: Wesley Snipes, Samuel L. Jackson, Laurence Fishburne
The Historical Hero negro Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Will Smith
The Sidekick negro-Sam Jackson, Morgan Freeman, Don Cheadle
Cop/Psychologist/Social Worker Negro-Sydney Poitier, Whoopi Goldberg
and then there's the , "Only African-American female to ever win an Academy Award for best actress getting ass-raped negress, Halle Berry
Fuck Will Smith, he's another total sell-out.

Once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

You can tell a man by the company he keeps. If the left is going to brand Ron Paul a "racist" for things he didn't write in newsletters bearing his name 30 years ago, then King Obama introducing another kook to the podium is more than fair game.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

It's not racist to shine the light of truth on Obama's well-hidden-by-the-non-FOX-media history.

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

Here's where we kind of agree, at least as far as there being no need to excessively castigate Obama on his shady history when we have his nearly 4 year RECORD OF FAILURE staring us in the face. If the fakeservatives lose it will be for this reason.