ilovefuzz.com

rustywire wrote:If humans in each respective era live worlds apart from each other, then is it not cognitive dissonance to hold past individuals and practices up to present standards and values while selectively downplaying or excusing present individuals from responsibility for their decisions?

TRIGGER WARNING:

It has come to my attention that the language below may be shocking, offensive, and/or debilitating to the sorts of wilting flowers who are firmly opposed to speech codes, even though they use the same language themselves here on a routine basis, because decorum and stuff. So if you are offended by the sort of language that you found passé when you were ten and your parents stopped raising an eyebrow at you using by the time you were 14, maybe you should go to a quiet room, put on some Yanni, and color rather than read on. By reading on, you assume all liability and agree to hold all others harmless for the costs of therapy, psychotropic prescriptions, and hemorrhoidal cream.















Who in the is excusing present individuals? All I'm pointing out is that there are also Christian Jihadis looking to kill, maim, and up in the name of their bizarre world view. I work in the middle of DC, so I'm concerned with potential terrorism from all sorts of . I'm worried that the FBI has downplayed watching certain white American under political pressure. I remember the Murrah building.



Oh my FSM. I'm a monster. I'm so sorry and ashamed.

Haven't you guys had more "home grown" attacks/bombings from disgruntled white males than any other group?
That happen to get chalked up as "mental health", and not any other burning hot agenda (meanwhile not doing anything about the mental health problem)?

Correct.

All of this is sideshow anyway.
We're bogged down in exactly the kind of rhetoric that detracts from the real issue.
You know, the one about the guy with the dead, bleached lemming stapled to his head making poor decisions on behalf of a superpower?
For the sake of argument, even if any of these things about Islamic militants are true, what's at stake is whether or not you trust that guy to deal with that?

I mean I know there's the concern that Hilldawg will continue the campaign of drone from above, but what kind of mad genocide would be proposed under Drumpf and MORE IMPORTANTLY, what does that do to the escalation game?
His very presence would be enough to get the wheels and cogs turning in those secret desert bunkers/metropolitan basements/suburban lounge rooms.

Yeah, mental health is more of a problem/threat in our country than "radical Islamic terrorism".

(P.S., Pope, our drone campaign isn't going anywhere. It's just gonna get worse too.)

@GonFis
That wasn't even a reply to you. Jumping in to engage me with contentious profanity is unfortunate. Over a cherry picked quote nonetheless. You have my sympathy, but wasting my time with undisciplined disrespect wont net much serious attention. Neither will appeals to emotion. In 4Q 2001 - 2Q 2002, I could go up the east hill to the Palisades and see smoke clouding the sky, from ground zero. It was on fire for months, a constant reminder only a few miles away. Sorry, but to me your concerns sound mixed up. That was 15 years ago, people want to forget. I get it. We can focus on 2016. Was the Pulse nightclub shooter a registered republican and white Christian? No? Then why were the feds so concerned about the politics surrounding his investigation they kept their distance...& why censor the shooter's 911 call detailing his motivation post-massacre?

@IoPo
Repeatedly calling Trump Drumpf as some sort of deliberate slight...cmon.
Do you still refer to Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce...or is dead name disrespect only OK if it's selective and the target deserves it?
Tacky. Like calling HRC "Crooked Hillary"
Isn't it...better...to be the better person you can be, especially where it requires little effort?

Lets not get into a pissing contest of pettiness, gang.
Making, paraphrasing & arguing claims without citation is equally foolish...as is using statistics to support confirmation bias.
Whether you're liberal or conservative, the search results you see are being driven by algorithms to appeal to your existing sensibilities and prejudices. Each side is being told they are persecuted and the others are protected. Because angry, fearful people are easiest to manipulate.
Supreme foolishness: Sentiment overpowering fact in matters of decision-making. Which it does more often than not. There has got to be balance or regrettably bad decisions are all but guaranteed.

Drumpf is funny though.

Chankgeez wrote:Drumpf is funny though.

every statistic I can point to shows that Drumpf is 90% funnier than Bruce as far as initial name recognition goes.

It's even a funnier sound than bruce.
You can sneeze and make a Drumpf noise, when is the last time you ever heard anyone sneeze .....aaahhh ahhh ahh Bruce.....see not friggen funny at all.

Extra funny: the words cunt and poppycock
and the assertion That cunt is full of poppycock.
Racial slurs can also be quite amusing
Humorless: the negative attitude "anything I can use against someone I dislike is fair game and funny, but when used against someone I like then it's going too far!"

rustywire wrote: Humorless: the negative attitude "anything I can use against someone I dislike is fair game and funny, but when used against someone I like then it's going too far!"

Isn't that Trump's motto?

Chankgeez wrote:

rustywire wrote: Humorless: the negative attitude "anything I can use against someone I dislike is fair game and funny, but when used against someone I like then it's going too far!"

Isn't that Trump's motto?

I thought it was Clinton's?

Get rid of "funny" and I think you're right.

You're both correct. It's the political motto. PC, in fact.
Where someone decides jokes become statements

Well, that gets back into what people think is appropriate or not for a Presidential candidate to joke about.

Chankgeez wrote:Well, that gets back into what people think is appropriate or not for a Presidential candidate to joke about.

I tend to Like President Obama's approach to humor, he doesn't seem to mind poking fun at himself, but he can dish it out a bit as well.

The problem I have with Trump is that he says stupid stupid things and then has to re-explain himself, it would be nice to see him think before he speaks.

With Hilary it almost seems to measured, I get that she has been training for this for years and years and is well scripted but none of it seems real.

They are both fakes for different reasons, trump has a false bravado and Hammettesque sense of his own importance. Hillary is a calculating politician.