Dude… Ol’ Z is a fucking cunt. Lol at Nugent being “mediocre.” Henry Rollins loves the Nug. Dude is instantly recognizable and nails that Detroit tone. Guys like Zecarlo are just miserable irrelevant geeks. Im sure his playing is leagues ahead of Ted’s.
Must be a slow night where you live for you to dig up an old post. Did you run out of meth?
I did. I said bad policy is the main qualification for holding office. If we were seeking only truth-tellers, everybody would be disqualified from holding office.
So, it’s a good thing to lie about your race in order to get to places you otherwise do not belong?
She spoke her truth.
Mine was a yes or no question - and it’s clear to me (and everyone) you’re just dodging it.
Either lying to get ahead is disqualifying or it’s not. Well, if you have integrity it is. If you think it’s ok to lie in pursuit of policy you like but it’s not ok to lie in pursuit of policy you don’t, you’re a moron and a scoundrel.
No, I’ve never said that - and I don’t believe it. But I also don’t think it’s ok to, for example, lie about philandering with a porn star while your wife recovers from childbirth to get to places you don’t otherwise do not belong (the presidency).
But, see - I’m consistent. What are you?
Hold the phone now. Roughly 139 million citizens voted for president in 2016. It was well known across party lines that BOTH candidates were in fact cynical, lying politicians. Does that make 139M people “scoundrels” because they held their nose and voted for odious people that push certain policy objectives?
You do know most politicians are lawyers right? If we can’t vote for people who bend the truth… then we can’t vote for anyone.
It’s naive to want politicians to be statesmen and people with character. History shows us that people who seek power in ernest are very often sociopaths. The entire point of limited government is to protect citizens from those types of people.
Voting for policy objectives you want whilst ignoring the warts of the person promising it is hardly the work of a scoundrel. It’s actually a pretty decent example of acting in rational self interest.
To your point it is inconsistent to support Trump despite his lies and refuse to consider a vote for Warren because of hers. I refuse to vote for Warren because she’s competing with Bernie for who can go further radically left.
4 Likes
Read what I wrote again - I said you’re a scoundrel and a moron if you have double standards on lying. As in, you’ll - like Pat - attack a Warren for lying to get ahead and say that is a reason not to vote for her, but say such lying by Trump isn’t disqualifying.
That’s the rank double standard I’m addressing.
Attack Warren on policy, that’s fine - that’s what politics is all about. But when I see Trumpkins clutching their pearls over Warren lying to get ahead - pretending as though they give a damn about personal integrity as a condition of serving as President - I call them out on their hypocrisy.
2 Likes
You know what, @Basement_Gainz? It has only been with the running and subsequent election of Trump that this is somehow accepted en masse by Conservatives. Just go back and read some of the Conservative grandstanding that occurred during the impeachment of Clinton…not to mention that something like 94% of Evangelicals support Trump.
Looks like Trump has brought everyone to Jesus…
And @thunderbolt23 posted it and said it best…it’s the utter hypocrisy of holding people to double standards; and as you know, it’s not just the current crop of Politicians running for office.
Things that would have had Conservatives screaming from the top of the Washington Monument had it been President Obama leads to legions of apologist (lead and fueled by FOX and Conservative Social Media) and in some cases silence when it comes to Trump.
1 Like
Just to be clear…
As a Country, we probably deserved the two choices we had for President in 2016.
1 Like
How many of these Trump supporters who are calling the legitimate investigations into his conduct as president a coup or illegal or whatever, were birthers (their leader was/is)? They call a legitimate action against the president, illegal, yet were fine with removing Obama based on what is the definition of fake news.
We’ve become a culture with no culture.
A bunch of “conservatives” were just fine with the patriot act, Medicare part D and the regime change war of Bush 2. Not exactly limited government by any standard. Just rank tribalism.
3 Likes
A bunch of conservatives were also fine with tax hikes and banning so called assault weapons.
Just different brands.
The distillation of everything I’ve observed in politics comes down to two primary concepts-
1.“Yeah, but We know what we’re doing”
And
- Who can “say so” better.
2 Likes
No, is the answer.
How the hell would screwing porn stars and infidelity get you anywhere? Even if true.
I never said who anybody should vote for or not, or what was disqualifying. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I was beating up on a politician I don’t like, that’s it. I know you would never do such a thing, but I would.
Isn’t it obvious? These are the type of behaviors that will get record support of evangelicals.
Although I’m not sure why you put even if true. Trump has never denied banging Stormi or paying her off. If he did he might lose some evangelical support. They have been pretty clear in the types of things they support. If you want to do well with them you need to talk filthy, cheat, screw pornstars, etc.
Everyone says it’s by far the most fun group to pander to.
1 Like