Cushin my friend you have not been around lately.
As I said yesterday PWI has become like the movie Ground Hog Day where Bill Murray awakes each day only to relive the exact same day over and over again. That is now PWI, and why I grow less and less interested in it. Each day is virtually the same freaking thing. With the same few characters saying the same things repeatedly.
Apparently she actually told the truth for a change.
If you would just do an affidavit, procure a surety bond, and perhaps upload a video snipping off your little finger with a pledge - maybe we can believe, 
(added to overcome Internet’s lack of nuance)
60 percent of the time it works every time.
By “nothing written by you that said anything like that”, do you mean “written plain as day for any person to read while having a discussion with Countingbeans?”
Did you “drag it out of me” by secretly logging in as Beans and starting the conversation?
Enough, clown.
@Gkhan, this is the nonsense I was referring to in my post to you.
Day after day you piled on Trump with no thoughts about saying anything negative about the Pants Suit. Anyone can check the history. And you claim simply because you’re not talking about Hillary doesn’t mean that you like her.Then suddenly you say that you’d rather have Hillary than Trump as “she’d be better in the long and short term”. If you said it to Beans first fine. But you’ve been claiming you didn’t like either for months. Then suddenly after posting umpteen times you admit it.
FRAUD!
Edit: And one of the most fraudulent scams you are trying to pull is claiming that I am a GOP operative. That was one of your funniest lines.
Soon enough you won’t have to (be able to) bother with it all.
That would be fine with me Ground Hog Day is getting old.
Other than having my taxes hiked yet again by a democrat who doesn’t understand that punishing small business is not a good thing. And having the Supreme Court loaded with left wing kooks.
But…I will be laughing at you and your cohorts as you lament the loss of more freedoms under the Pants Suit.
I’m not sure if you meant to write potato/potahto, but potato/potota is a lot funnier, and somehow more fitting under the circumstances.
But this really isn’t a question of nuance:
“I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said…”
…And…
…“If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me […] When you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands. And I think that’s what bothered Mr. Khan more than anything else. And, you know, I’m not going to change my views on that. We have radical Islamic terrorists coming in that have to be stopped…”
…Are both insults to grieving parents in much the same way that swimmer’s ear and brain cancer are both medical issues.
Contrary to popular belief, categorical distinctions can and very often do proceed from variations in degree. This is a categorical gulf. A presidential candidate insinuating that the father of a fallen soldier is a terrorist sympathizer. To minimize the gravity of this is to make not just a rational but also a moral error.
Well, during your time away I’ll be laughing that you thought Trump had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a general election. Conventions are over (bounces for both now factored in), Hillary’s indictment a bust, and Trump predictably being Trump…Hillary is once again roaring to a significant lead nationally, and distancing herself in states like Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania…
Back when there was still a chance of running Trump out of the party guys like you and Push could do nothing but whine about our attempts to do just that. Anyone whose sole purpose was to see Hillary defeated (and save the GoP as a viable party) should have campaigned against Trump in the primaries. I know a number of us did, despite the protestations of certain people on this forum.
You had your chance to join the voices warning primary voters about Trump, instead of ridiculing the attempt.
You know who you should have a laugh at? Yourself, Zeb. To have made a bet that Hillary could lose to a war crime and torture expanding campaign promise. To a guy whose own comments and actions objectified and degraded women (even Bill’s problem women) while running against the “first woman President.” That you thought a guy who questioned our commitment to NATO in public, while showing over and over again a frightening lack of foreign policy understanding, could ever hope to be your anti-Hillary. That you bet on a guy who race-baited and promoted one size fits all approaches to entire groups of people, to beat Hillary. That you bet on a guy who looks down on POWs and bickers with the Muslim parents of a fallen soldier. During your exile, laugh at that.
You’ll have your Madam President now. The question remains, just how badly will the rest of the Republicans get hammered for having become (for allowing themselves to become) the “party of Trump?”
The father showed more hatred for Trump speaking out than towards the terrorist who killed his son, or the candidate who voted to send his son to his death.
Code Pink chased Bush around for doing the same thing, and yet we hear crickets from the Left for the very same thing.
Don’t worry, I got the memo… Trump = very bad. Hillary = less bad.
Not nearly over yet Sloth.
Edit: Save your "I told you so’s until you actually win…if that happens.
That you’ll have to blame it on the 11 million (?) primary voters who decided that they wanted a big mouth bragger to be their candidate.
I think that is part of the problem around here. A few of you guys think that we are on FOX, or CNN or some other mouth piece of political information outlet.
This is a Bodybuilding site and we can all pound the key board until we are blue in the face and that might change the mind of 4 or 5 people.
This really is for fun…um…I’m thinking that most know that…
True, but also the folks who played defense for them.
[quote=“MaximusB, post:1256, topic:218984, full:true”]
The father showed more hatred for Trump speaking out than towards the terrorist who killed his son, or the candidate who voted to send his son to his death. [/quote]
Don’t know what this means. Presumably Khan doesn’t feel the need to persuade Americans that the terrorist who killed his son was a bad guy. That would have been a stupid-as-shit topic for a convention speech.
As it turned out, the much more pertinent and rational and effective topic was this: had the guy wanted to immigrate to this country under a Trump administration, his son, an infinitely more patriotic American than Donald Trump will ever be, not only couldn’t have served in the military, but couldn’t have even come here. (This is objectively, factually correct based on the fevered, cretinous horseshit that has been falling out of Trump’s own mouth for the past year, so it’s hard to understand what you’re objecting to.) Then, Trump insinuated that the said guy wouldn’t let his wife speak and is a terrorist sympathizer. Again, this is the father of a dead American soldier we’re talking about. A terrorist sympathizer. Spend the next three months trying to slice this any way you want, you’re never going to end up with anything more than “As major presidential contenders of the modern era go, Donald Trump is a uniquely stupid asshole.”
[Quote]
Code Pink chased Bush around for doing the same thing, and yet we hear crickets from the Left for the very same thing.[/quote]
Trump is actually not an unprecedented piece-of-dogshit POTUS candidate because _________ Code Pink. What fits into that sentence, making it logical?
Yes, correct. And you’re going to find out that most Americans agree when, barring an October surprise (courtesy of Trump’s devoted fans in the GRU, say), Hillary Clinton becomes your next president. Though to call less bad than Trump damning by faint praise would be an understatement.
It means that Trump’s words are apparently worse than Hillary’s actions. According to Hillary, we must empathize with the very bad guy who killed the son. That is an even more stupid-as-shit topic for a convention speech. I mean I like the idea of hugging terrorists, just make sure you’re wearing Kevlar.
Yes, since the proposed muslim ban would be temporary, he could have come here. Immigrants wait years to come, this is nothing new so this idea that he would never make it here is purely false. He could have also served in the military too. You are stretching rhetoric beyond what is even remotely believable.
We have had a number of parents of dead American soldiers raked over the coals even recent times, look no further than Pat Smith, mother of dead American intelligence officer Sean Smith, who Hillary suggested doesn’t recall their conversation accurately.
You’re right, Trump is a uniquely stupid asshole, no disagreement there.
I will fill in the blank for you…Trump is actually not an unprecedented piece of dogshit POTUS candidate because he did not contribute to the losses protested by Code Pink. But oh he simply MENTIONS something (not that he votes or enacts any of it), and the couch-fainting pearl-clutching political geeks don’t know how to scratch their beards anymore. How did I do ?
[quote=“MaximusB, post:1262, topic:218984, full:true”]
It means that Trump’s words are apparently worse than Hillary’s actions. According to Hillary, we must empathize with the very bad guy who killed the son. That is an even more stupid-as-shit topic for a convention speech. I mean I like the idea of hugging terrorists, just make sure you’re wearing Kevlar. [/quote]
It’s odd that you begin with a Trump’s words/Hillary’s actions dichotomy and then adduce…words Clinton once said. (More on those words in a second.) Either way, Trump’s “words” are, unfortunately, the primary instrument by which we can measure his (un)fitness for office. And they are more than mere talk: they’re proposals regarding what he will do and/or will endeavor to do if he gets the immense, concrete power to which he is currently uncomfortably close.
As for Clinton’s call for “empathy”:
“To sum up the differences between the most commonly used meanings of these two terms: sympathy is feeling compassion, sorrow, or pity for the hardships that another person encounters, while empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of another.”
Your “hugs” line, one can only assume, proceeds from a failure to distinguish between sympathy and empathy, the latter of which is perfectly compatible with hostility and even hatred (I can very easily empathize with those whom I hate, and I often do). In reality, one of the most fundamental and banal lessons of military history is that one must put oneself in the enemy’s shoes, understand his mind and motivations, anticipate his rational and emotional states. From Sun Tzu to Julius Caesar to Belisarius to Napoleon to Patton (to quote the movie, “YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD I READ YOUR BOOK”) to McNamara, the ability to empathize with the enemy has been a historically constant necessity.
In fact it would be correct to argue that a CIC or general or diplomat unable to empathize with our adversaries and sworn enemies would be an abject failure.
[Quote]
Yes, since the proposed muslim ban would be temporary, he could have come here. Immigrants wait years to come, this is nothing new so this idea that he would never make it here is purely false. He could have also served in the military too. You are stretching rhetoric beyond what is even remotely believable. [/quote]
As I said, even setting aside the flagrant stupidity and impossibility and unconstitutionality and cravenness of Trump’s proposed ban, if its temporariness is a function of his “figur[ing] out what’s going on,” then it is permanent. Because if Trump has shown us anything, it’s that he is intellectually incapable of figuring out even the most simple things about the world.
Furthermore, whether or not the ban is meant to be temporary has jack and shit to do with the fact that Humayun Khan, who was more a patriot and indeed more American than Trump has ever even pretended to be, is a good illustration of one of the many ways in which this entire policy debate is worthless and dumb.
The rest of your post doesn’t make sense to me, so I’ll leave it be. When we start having to link to dictonaries: that’s when we should probably assume that this is no longer a worthwhile line of argument.
Edit: Because Trump is back in the news for, apparently, more confused babbling about nukes, it feels important to note that you and I live in a world in which the threat of global catastrophe is a constant. There are – and I mean this literally – rooms filled with detailed instructions on when and how to incinerate the city in which you live along with everyone or almost everyone you have ever known. The ability to understand not only the objective meaning of each of our decisions but also the way those choices will be perceived by foreign entities in real time is a matter of life and death at the largest possible scale. You had better hope that empathy is practiced in the White House, now and forever.
