His Flatulence hits the crazy button

[fast]

You can't tell the difference between someone who opposes both, and someone who opposes just one of them. You think that someone who opposes Trump is right-wing because he also opposes Obama.

You call people trash for supporting someone they oppose. You illustrate the thoroughness of your understanding of politics through resorting to name-calling to replace your complete lack of ability to respond otherwise.

Yes, I am a partisan, just not for the party you want me to be a partisan of. You can't tell the difference between what I am and right-wing. This is because you have the belief that anything you disagree with, no matter how varied, is "right wing".

It would be pitiful if it weren't so funny.

Go back to AOL chat rooms.

You are spewing idiotic right-wing nonsense.

You can't repeat Republican talking points and then claim impartiality.

What Trump did was insane. There is no basis for it.

When Obama temporarily halted refugees it was based on actual warnings and based on the advise of intelligence experts.

You are playing a child's game.

Throwing up a fallacious smoke screen to avoid talking about the issue at hand.

Not a word in all your hand waving about the issue at hand. Trump's insane ban based on no intelligence asked for by no one.

It's like you have no place in your heart for insanity. Don'tcha know that crazy is what we need? I don't mean true insanity, of course. We need eccentricity. Courage with a pinch of narcacissim. Brazen, bold, strategic insight. Bring us who can be manipulative. Bring us who can ride up on and cross the line of right and wrong. Bring the man with a big heart who will push aside our adversaries like bugs on a windshield--and who will fight for my country in a way not done since days of Johnny.

I need someone serving as president that will make decisions that throw the disease ridden for a loop. When I first joined this forum, I thought there was something bad wrong with the people, but it's not atheism; that's just a symptom of the disease.

As Trump will agree, the media is our friend. Do you understand that? Can you comprehend what's going on? Can you take 60 seconds and set aside your instinct to write back that I'm spewing nonsense? Can you get past the difficulty of coming to the bandwagon thought that it's esoteric idiocy? If you can, if you can muster the strength, you can see the very reason why other countries were not added to the 7.

Things are not nearly as insane as you think. Not without reason. Not without thought. Grossly short-sighted and not thought out my ass. Mistakes of that proportion, no way. But crazy, he is, oh yeah, the kind of crazy that can pave the way to a bright future like none other.

Sad thing is, we're going to war and gonna lose a lot of people. Maybe we would be better off bored and stagnant. You're right about the dangerous part though. Your conclusion is right, just not your reasoning. All this crap by others about trump inspiring terrorism is well, just that, crap. Canada will be our biggest issue. North Korea and Iran? Russia? Nay, California, Canada, and for about 20 seconds Mexico.

On second thought, I may not have been thinking straight. Let's suppose you're spot on about everything. What the hell can we do? Be another you and inform those who cross our path of the truth? Join the diseased and come across as one of them...lot a good that does. They can't even protest without their Disney underwear showing.

I don't know. Maybe we need a little more America sanctioned terrorism (as you call it). Here's what you can do. The next time you see a trump supporter, don't spit on him; thank him--for being on the right side of crazy.

[/near the edge, lol]

Ps, my message is that you need to relax. You're easily excited and life's too short. I do think about some of the things you say. Thank you.

Trump. Dang. What have we gotten ourselves into! We're on the coaster now; hold on!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You can't tell the difference between someone who opposes both, and someone who opposes just one of them. You think that someone who opposes Trump is right-wing because he also opposes Obama.

You call people trash for supporting someone they oppose. You illustrate the thoroughness of your understanding of politics through resorting to name-calling to replace your complete lack of ability to respond otherwise.

Yes, I am a partisan, just not for the party you want me to be a partisan of. You can't tell the difference between what I am and right-wing. This is because you have the belief that anything you disagree with, no matter how varied, is "right wing".

It would be pitiful if it weren't so funny.

Go back to AOL chat rooms.

You are spewing idiotic right-wing nonsense.

You can't repeat Republican talking points and then claim impartiality.

What Trump did was insane. There is no basis for it.

When Obama temporarily halted refugees it was based on actual warnings and based on the advise of intelligence experts.

You are playing a child's game.

Throwing up a fallacious smoke screen to avoid talking about the issue at hand.

Not a word in all your hand waving about the issue at hand. Trump's insane ban based on no intelligence asked for by no one.

It seems very important to you that somehow I fit into your category of Trump supporter. Why is that?

Actually, I know why it is, but I'm wondering if you have enough introspective abilities for you to figure out why you want me to be one.

You sold out what you believe to support Hillary, and didn't get a good return on investment. You're lashing out. You are angry at yourself, and are projecting it onto everyone else. You want to lash out at Trump, eviscerate him over every little thing he does. Yet here I am saying "Look what Trump and Obama agree on" and that completely frustrates the effort. One of them is good, one of them is bad, you can't criticize the action of one without criticizing the action of another. So you want me to be a Trump supporter so that you can ignore the facts of where Trump and Obama agree. A kind of Ad Hominem fallacy, where you can ignore what i say because of what you imagine me to be. That way you can discount where Trump and Obama agree simply because I said it, and then go ahead and criticize Trump freely without paying attention to those pesky facts.

And also because you don't want any nuance. There's more than two options out there. Because you sold out and supported someone you don't agree with, you don't want to admit there's more than two options. Deep down under your anger you know you supported the Green candidate far more than you did Hillary. You wanted to vote for the Green candidate. You didn't. You sold out, and didn't even get anything for it. You sold out and Trump was elected anyway. So you want to justify your selling out and in order to do that there have to be only two options. So you erase from your mind the existence of third parties. Everyone is either D or R, and since I'm not D you therefore assign me as an R. Never mind that I'm actually a libertarian and a Libertarian. You need me to be an R because I'm not a D, and if I'm neither then you could have theoretically also been neither. And that means you actually had more than two choices, and that means you really did sell out. So rather than admit you sold out you want to simplify the world to the point where that sellout didn't occur, and that means recasting me as a Trump supporter.

Since you're angry, lashing out, and trying to over-simplify the world as a way to salve your conscience, the last thing you want is someone who rejects all the smoke-screens you are putting up to protect you from yourself. Every time I make the third party case, every time I point out a point of agreement between Obama and Trump, I expose you to yourself. I make you see what you did to yourself. You don't like that. You actually hate that so much that you write absurdities such as referring to Trump and Obama agreeing as a "Republican talking point." No. Republicans don't want to be seen as agreeing with Obama, just as Democrats don't want to be seen as agreeing with Trump. So saying they agree cannot be "right-wing nonsense" for the same reason it can't be "left-wing nonsense". Saying Obama and Trump agree on something is a statement guaranteed to offend both the right-wing and the left-wing at the same time.

Now that I've given what I believe to be the reason you want me to support Trump, now you can give what you think is the reason you want me to support Trump. Because it isn't a factual statement, it is a statement of desire expressed in order to pretend that stating it makes it into a fact. You are hoping that by saying it you make it so, much like many of the things Trump says. Yep, in your Trumpertantrum you wind up acting like Trump. So tell me why you want me to support Trump.

By the way, the basis for Trump's action was a law signed by Obama.

 

[James Brown]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...dumb-deal-australia-refugee-resettlement-live
Great diplomacy!

First threaten Mexico with military invasion over unspecified "bad hombres" then hang up in mid-sentence on one of the U.S.'s most important allies.

I have to say, I'm not impressed with the Bannon Adaministration so far.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...dumb-deal-australia-refugee-resettlement-live
Great diplomacy!

First threaten Mexico with military invasion over unspecified "bad hombres" then hang up in mid-sentence on one of the U.S.'s most important allies.

I have to say, I'm not impressed with the Bannon Adaministration so far.

You'd swear Trump thought he was elected President of Earth.

 

[Shadowy Man]

First threaten Mexico with military invasion over unspecified "bad hombres" then hang up in mid-sentence on one of the U.S.'s most important allies.

I have to say, I'm not impressed with the Bannon Adaministration so far.

You'd swear Trump thought he was elected President of Earth.

He simply believes that because he was elected that he was given permission to handle the Presidency the same way he handles his business, and we all know how successful he's been at that.

 

[arkirk]

As distateful as we seem to each other here sometimes, the Orange President seems to have a desire for a lot of human suffering. Before we hide our heads in shame over him, we have had a lot of the same kind of international company:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the courts tell him to fuck off.

Whether he complies is another matter...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3440921-031125162233.html

 

[Elixir]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...dumb-deal-australia-refugee-resettlement-live
Great diplomacy!

First threaten Mexico with military invasion over unspecified "bad hombres" then hang up in mid-sentence on one of the U.S.'s most important allies.

I have to say, I'm not impressed with the Bannon Adaministration so far.

Yeah, it'll get a lot more interesting when he sends our kids to war against Iran and China.

 

[untermensche]

You are spewing idiotic right-wing nonsense.

You can't repeat Republican talking points and then claim impartiality.

What Trump did was insane. There is no basis for it.

When Obama temporarily halted refugees it was based on actual warnings and based on the advise of intelligence experts.

You are playing a child's game.

Throwing up a fallacious smoke screen to avoid talking about the issue at hand.

Not a word in all your hand waving about the issue at hand. Trump's insane ban based on no intelligence asked for by no one.

It seems very important to you that somehow I fit into your category of Trump supporter. Why is that?

Actually, I know why it is, but I'm wondering if you have enough introspective abilities for you to figure out why you want me to be one.

You sold out what you believe to support Hillary, and didn't get a good return on investment. You're lashing out. You are angry at yourself, and are projecting it onto everyone else. You want to lash out at Trump, eviscerate him over every little thing he does. Yet here I am saying "Look what Trump and Obama agree on" and that completely frustrates the effort. One of them is good, one of them is bad, you can't criticize the action of one without criticizing the action of another. So you want me to be a Trump supporter so that you can ignore the facts of where Trump and Obama agree. A kind of Ad Hominem fallacy, where you can ignore what i say because of what you imagine me to be. That way you can discount where Trump and Obama agree simply because I said it, and then go ahead and criticize Trump freely without paying attention to those pesky facts.

And also because you don't want any nuance. There's more than two options out there. Because you sold out and supported someone you don't agree with, you don't want to admit there's more than two options. Deep down under your anger you know you supported the Green candidate far more than you did Hillary. You wanted to vote for the Green candidate. You didn't. You sold out, and didn't even get anything for it. You sold out and Trump was elected anyway. So you want to justify your selling out and in order to do that there have to be only two options. So you erase from your mind the existence of third parties. Everyone is either D or R, and since I'm not D you therefore assign me as an R. Never mind that I'm actually a libertarian and a Libertarian. You need me to be an R because I'm not a D, and if I'm neither then you could have theoretically also been neither. And that means you actually had more than two choices, and that means you really did sell out. So rather than admit you sold out you want to simplify the world to the point where that sellout didn't occur, and that means recasting me as a Trump supporter.

Since you're angry, lashing out, and trying to over-simplify the world as a way to salve your conscience, the last thing you want is someone who rejects all the smoke-screens you are putting up to protect you from yourself. Every time I make the third party case, every time I point out a point of agreement between Obama and Trump, I expose you to yourself. I make you see what you did to yourself. You don't like that. You actually hate that so much that you write absurdities such as referring to Trump and Obama agreeing as a "Republican talking point." No. Republicans don't want to be seen as agreeing with Obama, just as Democrats don't want to be seen as agreeing with Trump. So saying they agree cannot be "right-wing nonsense" for the same reason it can't be "left-wing nonsense". Saying Obama and Trump agree on something is a statement guaranteed to offend both the right-wing and the left-wing at the same time.

Now that I've given what I believe to be the reason you want me to support Trump, now you can give what you think is the reason you want me to support Trump. Because it isn't a factual statement, it is a statement of desire expressed in order to pretend that stating it makes it into a fact. You are hoping that by saying it you make it so, much like many of the things Trump says. Yep, in your Trumpertantrum you wind up acting like Trump. So tell me why you want me to support Trump.

By the way, the basis for Trump's action was a law signed by Obama.

Not a word in all your hand waving about the issue at hand. Trump's insane ban based on no intelligence asked for by no one.

 

[Elixir]

It seems very important to you that somehow I fit into your category of Trump supporter. Why is that?

Actually, I know why it is, but I'm wondering if you have enough introspective abilities for you to figure out why you want me to be one.

You sold out what you believe to support Hillary, and didn't get a good return on investment. You're lashing out. You are angry at yourself, and are projecting it onto everyone else. You want to lash out at Trump, eviscerate him over every little thing he does. Yet here I am saying "Look what Trump and Obama agree on" and that completely frustrates the effort. One of them is good, one of them is bad, you can't criticize the action of one without criticizing the action of another. So you want me to be a Trump supporter so that you can ignore the facts of where Trump and Obama agree. A kind of Ad Hominem fallacy, where you can ignore what i say because of what you imagine me to be. That way you can discount where Trump and Obama agree simply because I said it, and then go ahead and criticize Trump freely without paying attention to those pesky facts.

And also because you don't want any nuance. There's more than two options out there. Because you sold out and supported someone you don't agree with, you don't want to admit there's more than two options. Deep down under your anger you know you supported the Green candidate far more than you did Hillary. You wanted to vote for the Green candidate. You didn't. You sold out, and didn't even get anything for it. You sold out and Trump was elected anyway. So you want to justify your selling out and in order to do that there have to be only two options. So you erase from your mind the existence of third parties. Everyone is either D or R, and since I'm not D you therefore assign me as an R. Never mind that I'm actually a libertarian and a Libertarian. You need me to be an R because I'm not a D, and if I'm neither then you could have theoretically also been neither. And that means you actually had more than two choices, and that means you really did sell out. So rather than admit you sold out you want to simplify the world to the point where that sellout didn't occur, and that means recasting me as a Trump supporter.

Since you're angry, lashing out, and trying to over-simplify the world as a way to salve your conscience, the last thing you want is someone who rejects all the smoke-screens you are putting up to protect you from yourself. Every time I make the third party case, every time I point out a point of agreement between Obama and Trump, I expose you to yourself. I make you see what you did to yourself. You don't like that. You actually hate that so much that you write absurdities such as referring to Trump and Obama agreeing as a "Republican talking point." No. Republicans don't want to be seen as agreeing with Obama, just as Democrats don't want to be seen as agreeing with Trump. So saying they agree cannot be "right-wing nonsense" for the same reason it can't be "left-wing nonsense". Saying Obama and Trump agree on something is a statement guaranteed to offend both the right-wing and the left-wing at the same time.

Now that I've given what I believe to be the reason you want me to support Trump, now you can give what you think is the reason you want me to support Trump. Because it isn't a factual statement, it is a statement of desire expressed in order to pretend that stating it makes it into a fact. You are hoping that by saying it you make it so, much like many of the things Trump says. Yep, in your Trumpertantrum you wind up acting like Trump. So tell me why you want me to support Trump.

By the way, the basis for Trump's action was a law signed by Obama.

Not a word in all your hand waving about the issue at hand. Trump's insane ban based on no intelligence asked for by no one.

You can't call the "deplorable" half of 60,000,000 people "no one".

 

[untermensche]

Not a word in all your hand waving about the issue at hand. Trump's insane ban based on no intelligence asked for by no one.

You can't call the "deplorable" half of 60,000,000 people "no one".

Trump's deplorables which do exist all over the US don't have the where-with-all to come up with these provocative schemes.

They merely cheer when the lives of women and children they have never met are made more miserable.

Like the slave owner who had no pity for the black people they were torturing these hateful thugs have no pity for humans if they are Muslim. Not far from the Nazi's at all. A hair's breath away.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It seems very important to you that somehow I fit into your category of Trump supporter. Why is that?

Actually, I know why it is, but I'm wondering if you have enough introspective abilities for you to figure out why you want me to be one.

You sold out what you believe to support Hillary, and didn't get a good return on investment. You're lashing out. You are angry at yourself, and are projecting it onto everyone else. You want to lash out at Trump, eviscerate him over every little thing he does. Yet here I am saying "Look what Trump and Obama agree on" and that completely frustrates the effort. One of them is good, one of them is bad, you can't criticize the action of one without criticizing the action of another. So you want me to be a Trump supporter so that you can ignore the facts of where Trump and Obama agree. A kind of Ad Hominem fallacy, where you can ignore what i say because of what you imagine me to be. That way you can discount where Trump and Obama agree simply because I said it, and then go ahead and criticize Trump freely without paying attention to those pesky facts.

And also because you don't want any nuance. There's more than two options out there. Because you sold out and supported someone you don't agree with, you don't want to admit there's more than two options. Deep down under your anger you know you supported the Green candidate far more than you did Hillary. You wanted to vote for the Green candidate. You didn't. You sold out, and didn't even get anything for it. You sold out and Trump was elected anyway. So you want to justify your selling out and in order to do that there have to be only two options. So you erase from your mind the existence of third parties. Everyone is either D or R, and since I'm not D you therefore assign me as an R. Never mind that I'm actually a libertarian and a Libertarian. You need me to be an R because I'm not a D, and if I'm neither then you could have theoretically also been neither. And that means you actually had more than two choices, and that means you really did sell out. So rather than admit you sold out you want to simplify the world to the point where that sellout didn't occur, and that means recasting me as a Trump supporter.

Since you're angry, lashing out, and trying to over-simplify the world as a way to salve your conscience, the last thing you want is someone who rejects all the smoke-screens you are putting up to protect you from yourself. Every time I make the third party case, every time I point out a point of agreement between Obama and Trump, I expose you to yourself. I make you see what you did to yourself. You don't like that. You actually hate that so much that you write absurdities such as referring to Trump and Obama agreeing as a "Republican talking point." No. Republicans don't want to be seen as agreeing with Obama, just as Democrats don't want to be seen as agreeing with Trump. So saying they agree cannot be "right-wing nonsense" for the same reason it can't be "left-wing nonsense". Saying Obama and Trump agree on something is a statement guaranteed to offend both the right-wing and the left-wing at the same time.

Now that I've given what I believe to be the reason you want me to support Trump, now you can give what you think is the reason you want me to support Trump. Because it isn't a factual statement, it is a statement of desire expressed in order to pretend that stating it makes it into a fact. You are hoping that by saying it you make it so, much like many of the things Trump says. Yep, in your Trumpertantrum you wind up acting like Trump. So tell me why you want me to support Trump.

By the way, the basis for Trump's action was a law signed by Obama.

Not a word in all your hand waving about the issue at hand. Trump's insane ban based on no intelligence asked for by no one.

The issue at hand in that post is why you counter-factually want me to be a Trump supporter. I wish I could say I was surprised that you didn't answer why you want it so much.

 

[Elixir]

You can't call the "deplorable" half of 60,000,000 people "no one".

They merely cheer when the lives of women and children they have never met are made more miserable.

Right - they ASKED for it. They complain about protests against their Orange Doughball, never considering that if that majority opposition took the form most oft employed by their ideological brethren, they'd be lynched - or gassed.

 

[bleubird]

Trump wants to invade Mexico? WTF.

 

[bilby]

Trump wants to invade Mexico? WTF.

Fascist dictators always want to invade their neighbours. And Canada is too cold at this time of year, so he really didn't have a lot of other choices.

Of course, if Lord Dampnut does decide to annexe some or all of Mexico on whatever flimsy pretext (to defeat the drug barons, or because the Mexican army attacked a radio transmitter near the border, or whatever) then he is left with the problem of what to do with all the sub-humans that he can currently keep out of the Greater Reich USA by closing the border. Once the Anschluss annexation is complete, he will find that he needs another, more final solution to the Hispanic problem.

 

[untermensche]

They merely cheer when the lives of women and children they have never met are made more miserable.

Right - they ASKED for it. They complain about protests against their Orange Doughball, never considering that if that majority opposition took the form most oft employed by their ideological brethren, they'd be lynched - or gassed.

Women and children are being harmed by Trump's ban.

And many Americans don't give a damn.

They are deplorable.

 

[fast]

Right - they ASKED for it. They complain about protests against their Orange Doughball, never considering that if that majority opposition took the form most oft employed by their ideological brethren, they'd be lynched - or gassed.

Women and children are being harmed by Trump's ban.

And many Americans don't give a damn.

They are deplorable.

When someone knocks on my door and asks for a can of beans and I give her a can of beans, I've helped someone, but when the next person comes-a-knockin' and I don't help him, then I have not harmed anyone. Not helping does not imply harming, but not everyone is mindful of that distinction. You might be.

If I give you an opportunity and later put restrictions on that opportunity, it wouldn't surprise me to see that characterized in a negative light, but in a world where our actions are twisted with the words we use, there remains a fundamentally important distinction between "taking" and "not giving." That is so even when the net effect is the same.

Granting temporary access to my refrigerator and then later I stop granting that access, then one may want to say that I have taken away their access, and the effect of having no milk may be the same regardless of our verbiage, the fundamental, important, and critical distinction between whether I have harmed someone hangs in the balance.

Maybe you're right, and maybe this so-called ban is harming women and children. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Maybe not.

How come it is YOU think so?

 

[untermensche]

Women and children are being harmed by Trump's ban.

And many Americans don't give a damn.

They are deplorable.

When someone knocks on my door and asks for a can of beans and I give her a can of beans, I've helped someone, but when the next person comes-a-knockin' and I don't help him, then I have not harmed anyone. Not helping does not imply harming, but not everyone is mindful of that distinction. You might be.

If I give you an opportunity and later put restrictions on that opportunity, it wouldn't surprise me to see that characterized in a negative light, but in a world where our actions are twisted with the words we use, there remains a fundamentally important distinction between "taking" and "not giving." That is so even when the net effect is the same.

Granting temporary access to my refrigerator and then later I stop granting that access, then one may want to say that I have taken away their access, and the effect of having no milk may be the same regardless of our verbiage, the fundamental, important, and critical distinction between whether I have harmed someone hangs in the balance.

Maybe you're right, and maybe this so-called ban is harming women and children. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Maybe not.

How come it is YOU think so?

If somebody is cold and asks for a blanket, and you have many you don't even use but refuse, you have harmed them.

That is human morality.

Not helping somebody when you can easily help them is indirectly harming them. Allowing suffering to continue when you can stop it without causing harm to yourself is harming somebody.

 

[fast]

When someone knocks on my door and asks for a can of beans and I give her a can of beans, I've helped someone, but when the next person comes-a-knockin' and I don't help him, then I have not harmed anyone. Not helping does not imply harming, but not everyone is mindful of that distinction. You might be.

If I give you an opportunity and later put restrictions on that opportunity, it wouldn't surprise me to see that characterized in a negative light, but in a world where our actions are twisted with the words we use, there remains a fundamentally important distinction between "taking" and "not giving." That is so even when the net effect is the same.

Granting temporary access to my refrigerator and then later I stop granting that access, then one may want to say that I have taken away their access, and the effect of having no milk may be the same regardless of our verbiage, the fundamental, important, and critical distinction between whether I have harmed someone hangs in the balance.

Maybe you're right, and maybe this so-called ban is harming women and children. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Maybe not.

How come it is YOU think so?

If somebody is cold and asks for a blanket, and you have many you don't even use but refuse, you have harmed them.

That is human morality.

Not helping somebody when you can easily help them is indirectly harming them. Allowing suffering to continue when you can stop it without causing harm to yourself is harming somebody.

See, this is what happens when people conflate harm with wrong. Even if harm implies wrong, the inverse is not true. I too think it would be wrong in some circumstances to not be helpful, but elevating that to accusations of being harmful is not accurate.

Edited to add:

Not giving you a blanket is fundamentally different than taking your blanket away. Even if the consequences are the same, and even if both are wrong, and even though neither is helpful, it's only the latter and not the former that is harmful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yet another judge tells His Flatulence where he can stick it:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/