Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 54 of 4376

TribalWar Forums (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/index.php)
-   TWHOF (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=275)
-   -   [Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=686285)

Kerosene31 12-06-2016 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by phaytal (Post 18685667)
Gay rights are already completely ****ed. If, and when Trump becomes the puppet we all know he will, every single appointee he has on his staff, who will be pulling those strings, has a record of trying to pass anti-gay legislation, and oppose equality. Every. Single. One.

:shrug:

Right and even if we don't care about gay rights, what about the internet? Trump is appointing people who want to crush net neutrality.

While we laugh at him going off about the liberal media, what about when he takes action and actually starts limiting free speech?

KingSobieski 12-06-2016 11:10

uh, liberals are already attempting to limit free speech. If you're a white male in the USA you are cornered. Just by your mere existence you are triggering the SJW army. A vote for trump is hate speech, a reaffirmation in your belief in racist tenets.

spare me the trump is limiting free speech drivel. he's taken a phone call from taiwan and the media is bending over backwards to suck china's yellow dick.

he's a man that no one can restrain and the constant diarrhea flowing forth from the Chosen One is a good sign that the 1st and 2nd amendment are in good hands.

the only free speech he's going to limit on the internet is backwater cesspool holes where 2nd generation muslim immigrants get radicalized and go on stabbing sprees at universities. you can bet that there'll be an investigation into his internet history that will lead into other arrests. that's something that we can all agree on.

should it be legal for people to be on a internet website, discuss an attack on a college campus, and allow that discussion to be protected by the 1st amendment? of course not, those people should be hunted down like dogs and shot in the streets.

Kerosene31 12-06-2016 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingSobieski (Post 18685674)
uh, liberals are already attempting to limit free speech. If you're a white male in the USA you are cornered. Just by your mere existence you are triggering the SJW army. A vote for trump is hate speech, a reaffirmation in your belief in racist tenets.

They whine, but when did they actually limit free speech? Trump's message seemed to get out there just fine.

There's a big difference between throwing a hissy fit and actually talking about limiting the press.

NightTrain 12-06-2016 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by phaytal (Post 18685667)
Gay rights are already completely ****ed. If, and when Trump becomes the puppet we all know he will, every single appointee he has on his staff, who will be pulling those strings, has a record of trying to pass anti-gay legislation, and oppose equality. Every. Single. One.

Everyone pls listen to this user. His track record for political prognostication is unparalleled and extends back to even before Hillary's landslide victory over Trump.

Fool 12-06-2016 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18685677)
They whine, but when did they actually limit free speech? Trump's message seemed to get out there just fine.

There's a big difference between throwing a hissy fit and actually talking about limiting the press.

Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram are all banning conservative speakers. "But those are private companies who can do what they please!" Sure, and what they please are echo chambers of liberal bliss. Now there's a war on "fake news", which really means any news that slants to the right. We've reached a point where simply having a different opinion classifies as "hate speech" and therefore not "free speech", even though there's no exception for that in the constitution. Go figure.

-SS- 12-06-2016 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18685609)
I don't actually disagree, but where I don't agree is Trump or the right doing any of this.

And no, of course voting for the left isn't either. That's why the two party system sucks.

An erosion of rights? Which party was responsible for the patriot act? Sure, your guns are safe under the right, but what about freedom of speech and a bunch of other things?

What about gay rights? Trump seems fine with gay people, but if he puts a bible thumper on the court (which he says he will), that's more rights eroded. Just because those are rights that don't impact us doesn't mean they aren't going away. What about anti-muslim stuff? Yay right? Until those rules lay the groundwork that leads towards less rights for everyone. Ok to spy on muslims without probable cause? How long before that turns into everyone as "anyone could be a muslim".

Hillary was a terrible choice, save your "but e-mails and pizza!!!". That doesn't make Trump any better a choice. Now if he gets in office and actually cuts spending, great. I'll gladly eat crow and admit I was wrong. All I see is tax cuts for the rich and other spending that will drive up the deficit bigly.

Are you talking to me or at me? Are you assuming I am a trump supporter? It needs to be established where you are coming from.

It seems you are shouting at me for things I give no ****s about, like 'gay Rights'. Why should I care what they do in their private lives? Gay marriage is something more nuanced to me. My take is that marriage has been an institutional purview of churches as a societal norm. So with that in mind, gays are not allowed to infringe on the Rights of religious people by forcing churches to do something against their beliefs. However, gays should have a legal equivalent of marriage and the churches not allowed to infringe upon their Rights to a civil union. That's fair imo.

And before you get all uppity about republicans passing the PA (which they deserve being blasted for as well as expanding medicare part D and other things), remember, the beloved democrats did jack **** about repealing it when they had plenty of opportunity to get rid of it, as well as the NDAA.

I'll also remind you that the current assault on free speech falls primarily on campuses and social media. These are domains of leftwing ideology -that you didnt mention above. Whats your take on that? Do support cultural marxism or not?

So dont you dare point your bony finger of indignation at anyone until you have properly addressed both sides.

JoMo 12-06-2016 12:11

phaytal and Kerosene31 still telling each other scary stories to scare each other about Trump.

You might remember phaytal for the many times he posted 'betting odds' and said that Trump had no chance of winning. Better listen to him, he's usually right about this stuff... :rofl:

JoMo 12-06-2016 12:13

Eggi has a sad....

Trump: Cancel Boeings Air Force One contract - POLITICO

phaytal 12-06-2016 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by -SS- (Post 18685701)
Gay marriage is something more nuanced to me. My take is that marriage has been an institutional purview of churches as a societal norm. So with that in mind, gays are not allowed to infringe on the Rights of religious people by forcing churches to do something against their beliefs.

Sorry to break it to you, but 'your take' on marriage is wrong. Marriage predates the Abrahamic religions by at least 3000 years, as there is evidence of marriage in both Sumarian and Babylonian cultures.

Just another tradition Christianity stole from Pagans.

Kerosene31 12-06-2016 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoMo (Post 18685709)

Apparently making things in America is too expensive??? :D

phaytal 12-06-2016 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoMo (Post 18685705)
phaytal and Kerosene31 still telling each other scary stories to scare each other about Trump.

You might remember phaytal for the many times he posted 'betting odds' and said that Trump had no chance of winning. Better listen to him, he's usually right about this stuff... :rofl:

Just making conversation.




p.s. you're still on welfare

-SS- 12-06-2016 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by phaytal (Post 18685711)
Sorry to break it to you, but 'your take' on marriage is wrong. Marriage predates the Abrahamic religions by at least 3000 years, as there is evidence of marriage in both Sumarian and Babylonian cultures.

Just another tradition Christianity stole from Pagans.

societal norm = modern day

nothing was said otherwise regardless if they stole it or not

wars have been fought over land, should we go back and return them too?

point dismissed. next?

Kerosene31 12-06-2016 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fool (Post 18685700)
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram are all banning conservative speakers. "But those are private companies who can do what they please!" Sure, and what they please are echo chambers of liberal bliss. Now there's a war on "fake news", which really means any news that slants to the right. We've reached a point where simply having a different opinion classifies as "hate speech" and therefore not "free speech", even though there's no exception for that in the constitution. Go figure.

People who get their news from those sites are too dumb to be helped anyway. There's no way those places could avoid turning into echo chambers... that's actually how they are designed. You don't need Reddit's mods doing bad things to turn things into an echo chamber, even the video game forums turn into awful versions of those.

The problem isn't the echo chambers, but that people choose the echo chambers. In 2016 there are more than enough alternatives. How much of an echo chamber is this thread? Anything remotely critical of Trump gets shouted down. Heck even SS got called out because he didn't like Trump in the debates.

Esteban_Villa 12-06-2016 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fool (Post 18685700)
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram are all banning conservative speakers. "But those are private companies who can do what they please!" Sure, and what they please are echo chambers of liberal bliss. Now there's a war on "fake news", which really means any news that slants to the right. We've reached a point where simply having a different opinion classifies as "hate speech" and therefore not "free speech", even though there's no exception for that in the constitution. Go figure.

Well,

Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia limited free speech. Given the famous line 'you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater,' due to the potential for harm, the slippery slope fallacy comes into play as we are now restricting speech as people quite literally kill themselves (and lesser degrees of self-harm) over being confronted with opposing views. Where is the line drawn? Where is personal accountability? To me, the difference in that SCOTUS decision is there is no time to weigh options and investigate the matter. 'Hate speech,' as currently defined, does not create any immediate danger and can be beaten via logical discourse. Someone telling their congregation to lynch the ******s right now is inciting harm, which to make someone commit harm is hateful in definition except among the small percentage of pathological disorders who can act without remorse. Hate speech being legally codified as 'worse' was the beginning of true restriction of freedom of speech which we now see as being expanded to 'fake news.' Orwell was a ****ing time traveler or something.

Free speech means the right for hateful speech to brought into public discourse. To me, an educated populace when shown all options will make (to a large degree with exceptions for small percentages) the right decision. Limiting the variety of speech available makes for poorer decisions. The educated populace principle has gone out the window because education has become equated with a college degree as opposed to the use of logic. Echo chambers have always been here, and now algorithms are being used to magnify their effect the Nth degree. I enjoy hearing new views and seeing how other cultures work to compare and contrast with what I do, picking the best practices to augment what I already do and know. A large percentage of people do not have that mindset. I can not even come up with a bull**** percentage I would hang even my hat on, let alone my beliefs, but it's a lot. Many people I sided with on this election would just as quickly seek to restrict the opposition via the same tactics. It's tough being in the middle as you're surrounded by people who think you're the enemy.

There's a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment, and bearing arms is the second. When the first fails, the second must be used. There's still a lot of time and opportunity left to save the first. The sudden glorification of Hamilton is interesting as Jefferson was his main ideological opponent. I like to think I would have been a Hamiltonian then, but a Jeffersonian now. Jefferson's writings on the US having further revolutions in the future are well known, and many interpret it to be outright populace rising up but I see it as a revolution in thought and using our systems in place to bring those who seek to restrict rights while we work to fix it. With the deep government clearly in action via the Bush's and Clinton's, the manifestation of Donald has thrown an x-factor into our controlled descent into tyranny.

Reactionaries, historically, have been the guys who wish to turn the clock back on a lot "progress." We're at a unique junction where we don't believe gays are witches, and can guarantee their rights by turning the clock back on the myriad of restrictions put into place since the 60's. We've been in a perpetual war for 15 years. The first decade our Army was a thousand men on the frontier. Trump gives the best chance for all minorities in terms of absolute rights. Hand outs like Affirmative Action have failed and hurt those who through their own strength rise out of ****ty situations as they become 'affirmative action hires' which is a ****ing shame.

MAGA is about every citizen doing better, even if you don't believe in it. The only people that have anything to fear are those who sold their soul to the system. More people saying what they want, and in many cases being ostracized by the public for it, but that's fine that's how we sharpen our collective ideals towards a good honest truth in man. More guns, cause the people have owned the right to be responsible for themselves 240 years ago. Last, but not least or only - NO MORE QUARTERING OF TROOPS IN PRIVATE HOMES! NEVER FORGET!

Fool 12-06-2016 12:31

Pew research has 62% of people getting their news from social media platforms. And bringing up TW doesn't help your case. Nobody gets shouted down here, everyone in this thread has engaged in civil discussion. If you can rationalize and make a proper argument, you don't have any issues. Furthermore nobody has even been banned, and no posts removed, no stories censored simply for wrong think. Being called an idiot because you make an idiotic statement is not being "shouted down".

NightTrain 12-06-2016 12:32

Mitch got called p00ptruck that is same as twitter banning milo

WarBuddha 12-06-2016 12:32

The press is already trying to limit itself. They want to shut down "fake news" sites while parading around like they aren't giant propaganda machines. Facebook is trying to control what media you can read, get your ****ing head out of the sand and take a look around. Trump is not the enemy, the Liberal SJW brainwashing army is.

havax 12-06-2016 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18685719)
People who get their news from those sites are too dumb to be helped anyway. There's no way those places could avoid turning into echo chambers... that's actually how they are designed. You don't need Reddit's mods doing bad things to turn things into an echo chamber, even the video game forums turn into awful versions of those.

The problem isn't the echo chambers, but that people choose the echo chambers. In 2016 there are more than enough alternatives. How much of an echo chamber is this thread? Anything remotely critical of Trump gets shouted down. Heck even SS got called out because he didn't like Trump in the debates.

you don't know what an echo chamber is if you think this thread is an echo chamber. an echo chamber is when it's pretty much 100% everyone echoing the same thing. echo chambers do not allow different opinions. if this was an echo chamber site, you would be banned, but it's not, it's a free speech site.

an echo chamber news organization is something like cnn, where everything is left leaning, and if they don't like what you have to say, they lose the satellite feed completely.

Eggi 12-06-2016 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fool (Post 18685724)
Nobody gets shouted down here, everyone in this thread has engaged in civil discussion. If you can rationalize and make a proper argument, you don't have any issues. Furthermore nobody has even been banned, and no posts removed, no stories censored simply for wrong think. Being called an idiot because you make an idiotic statement is not being "shouted down".

that's complete bull****. you may engage in civil discussion, but there is a large group of individuals that shout down anyone who disagrees with them and occasionally threaten to mess with their lives (eg emailing their company, etc) for posting things they disgaree with. Some of it is idle threat and some of it is not. If you think that TW is a bastion of free speech you are ****ing kidding yourself. For the most part, TW is a weird internet echo chamber for disillusioned angry white males in their 30s and 40s.

JoMo 12-06-2016 12:39

https://i.sli.mg/SS2MKI.png

Kerosene31 12-06-2016 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by havax (Post 18685727)
you don't know what an echo chamber is if you think this thread is an echo chamber. an echo chamber is when it's pretty much 100% everyone echoing the same thing. echo chambers do not allow different opinions. if this was an echo chamber site, you would be banned, but it's not, it's a free speech site.

an echo chamber news organization is something like cnn, where everything is left leaning, and if they don't like what you have to say, they lose the satellite feed completely.

62% of people are probably stupid too. Actually things like Twitter can be ok for news as long as you balance your feed.

That's just the nature of those things. My facebook feed has lots of video games on it because I like video games. That works fine until you get into politics.

Also anyone objective can spot the BS clickbait headlines. "Trump destroys China relations!!!!" (of course he just answered a stupid phone call).

As for reasonable discussion, I'm still waiting for one person to answer my question about Trump's claim:

Were there millions of fraudulent votes for Hillary and did he actually win the popular vote?

KingSobieski 12-06-2016 12:40

FOX, MSNBC, and CNN are infotainment. They're not actually news sites. However, FOX is slightly more palatable to watch simply for the female anchor skirt mandate. Otherwise, there's nothing redeemable about who they are or what they do.

KingSobieski 12-06-2016 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18685730)
As for reasonable discussion, I'm still waiting for one person to answer my question about Trump's claim:

Were there millions of fraudulent votes for Hillary and did he actually win the popular vote?

Half of Detroit votes may be ineligible for recount

Quote:

One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots.

Michiganís largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldnít reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.
does that answer your question? yes/no

Veniggs 12-06-2016 12:43

idk what happens behind closed doors with "threats" but i always think the melodramatic posts about the state of tw are ridiculous

Fool 12-06-2016 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18685728)
that's complete bull****. you may engage in civil discussion, but there is a large group of individuals that shout down anyone who disagrees with them and occasionally threaten to mess with their lives (eg emailing their company) etc for posting things they disgaree with. Some of it is idle threat and some of it is not. If you think that TW is a bastion of free speech you are ****ing kidding yourself. For the most part, TW is a weird internet echo chamber for disillusioned angry white males in their 30s and 40s.

I won't refute that some people take it too far, but that's not the majority. If you'd care to provide a list of people among the large group of individuals that shout down anyone who disagrees with them, I'd be curious to see it. Being refuted is not being shouted down.

Esteban_Villa 12-06-2016 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18685719)
People who get their news from those sites are too dumb to be helped anyway. There's no way those places could avoid turning into echo chambers... that's actually how they are designed. You don't need Reddit's mods doing bad things to turn things into an echo chamber, even the video game forums turn into awful versions of those.

The problem isn't the echo chambers, but that people choose the echo chambers. In 2016 there are more than enough alternatives. How much of an echo chamber is this thread? Anything remotely critical of Trump gets shouted down. Heck even SS got called out because he didn't like Trump in the debates.

Free speech is about getting called out.

Echo chamber is when I make one post on Trump the entire election cycle and extending an olive branch to my blue friends...nothing inflammatory as that's very poor form. No self-congratulatory attitude. 9 people de-friended me out of about 400 total. Those 9 people want an echo chamber. I'm sure more do to but didn't read it.

Echo chamber is sound proofing from the outside as you are too weak to handle differing sounds coming through. Free speech is putting yourself at risk for potential blast and not crying when you put forth a poor argument.

Very important distinction. One requires you to be willing to risk your reality, one requires you to find a herd of the same type. We've become an inherently risk adverse society and reality is the most important component to one's identity, so risking one's ideas is naturally the first thing off the table as it's the glue that keeps holds everything in place.

Some see it as iron sharpen iron (I do), others see it as a fundamental threat to their health. The person who grows up in a bubble never exposed to a variety germs when released to the wild will die first. The formation of a large percentage of the blue voter bloc on these people is the formalization of a weak society. Tyrants love weak people as they need the most management to survive.

WarBuddha 12-06-2016 12:50

I think he's talking about the naptown's of the site who threaten to expose them.

phaytal 12-06-2016 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by -SS- (Post 18685717)
societal norm = modern day

nothing was said otherwise regardless if they stole it or not

wars have been fought over land, should we go back and return them too?

point dismissed. next?

Your point inferred that marriage is somehow sanctimonious because the 'societal norm' is marrying under an umbrella of a religion, therefore, gay folks should settle for the title of civil union.

Does that annul atheist marriages? Marriages performed by a judge instead of a priest? What about marriages performed by Elvis in Las Vegas? Hell, I can go online and be able to marry my friends in about 15 minutes.

A legal marriage is recognized by the state, not some god, and nowhere on a marriage license is there a single mention of religion.

Kerosene31 12-06-2016 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingSobieski (Post 18685733)
Half of Detroit votes may be ineligible for recount



does that answer your question? yes/no

No.

Did Trump win the popular vote? Was there enough voter fraud for Hillary to make up 2 million+ votes?

Yes/no/don't know

Esteban_Villa 12-06-2016 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarBuddha (Post 18685739)
I think he's talking about the naptown's of the site who threaten to expose them.

Anarchists have always existed in the world :) Only political 'group' to assassinate one of our presidents.

someone posted about him dropping a brick on a homeless dude from a balcony way long time ago. Those who weren't cut of the same cloth 95% of us are will always play antagonist to whoever gives them jollies in harassing.

havax 12-06-2016 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18685728)
that's complete bull****. you may engage in civil discussion, but there is a large group of individuals that shout down anyone who disagrees with them and occasionally threaten to mess with their lives (eg emailing their company, etc) for posting things they disgaree with. Some of it is idle threat and some of it is not. If you think that TW is a bastion of free speech you are ****ing kidding yourself. For the most part, TW is a weird internet echo chamber for disillusioned angry white males in their 30s and 40s.

you and your ilk shout down everything trump supporters say and try to belittle them by calling them angry white males all the time. so i guess you're no better, huh?

spockhammer 12-06-2016 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esteban_Villa (Post 18685723)
Well,

Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia limited free speech. Given the famous line 'you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater,' due to the potential for harm, the slippery slope fallacy comes into play as we are now restricting speech as people quite literally kill themselves (and lesser degrees of self-harm) over being confronted with opposing views. Where is the line drawn? Where is personal accountability? To me, the difference in that SCOTUS decision is there is no time to weigh options and investigate the matter. 'Hate speech,' as currently defined, does not create any immediate danger and can be beaten via logical discourse. Someone telling their congregation to lynch the ******s right now is inciting harm, which to make someone commit harm is hateful in definition except among the small percentage of pathological disorders who can act without remorse. Hate speech being legally codified as 'worse' was the beginning of true restriction of freedom of speech which we now see as being expanded to 'fake news.' Orwell was a ****ing time traveler or something.

Free speech means the right for hateful speech to brought into public discourse. To me, an educated populace when shown all options will make (to a large degree with exceptions for small percentages) the right decision. Limiting the variety of speech available makes for poorer decisions. The educated populace principle has gone out the window because education has become equated with a college degree as opposed to the use of logic. Echo chambers have always been here, and now algorithms are being used to magnify their effect the Nth degree. I enjoy hearing new views and seeing how other cultures work to compare and contrast with what I do, picking the best practices to augment what I already do and know. A large percentage of people do not have that mindset. I can not even come up with a bull**** percentage I would hang even my hat on, let alone my beliefs, but it's a lot. Many people I sided with on this election would just as quickly seek to restrict the opposition via the same tactics. It's tough being in the middle as you're surrounded by people who think you're the enemy.

There's a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment, and bearing arms is the second. When the first fails, the second must be used. There's still a lot of time and opportunity left to save the first. The sudden glorification of Hamilton is interesting as Jefferson was his main ideological opponent. I like to think I would have been a Hamiltonian then, but a Jeffersonian now. Jefferson's writings on the US having further revolutions in the future are well known, and many interpret it to be outright populace rising up but I see it as a revolution in thought and using our systems in place to bring those who seek to restrict rights while we work to fix it. With the deep government clearly in action via the Bush's and Clinton's, the manifestation of Donald has thrown an x-factor into our controlled descent into tyranny.

Reactionaries, historically, have been the guys who wish to turn the clock back on a lot "progress." We're at a unique junction where we don't believe gays are witches, and can guarantee their rights by turning the clock back on the myriad of restrictions put into place since the 60's. We've been in a perpetual war for 15 years. The first decade our Army was a thousand men on the frontier. Trump gives the best chance for all minorities in terms of absolute rights. Hand outs like Affirmative Action have failed and hurt those who through their own strength rise out of ****ty situations as they become 'affirmative action hires' which is a ****ing shame.

MAGA is about every citizen doing better, even if you don't believe in it. The only people that have anything to fear are those who sold their soul to the system. More people saying what they want, and in many cases being ostracized by the public for it, but that's fine that's how we sharpen our collective ideals towards a good honest truth in man. More guns, cause the people have owned the right to be responsible for themselves 240 years ago. Last, but not least or only - NO MORE QUARTERING OF TROOPS IN PRIVATE HOMES! NEVER FORGET!


spockhammer 12-06-2016 12:55

well we all knew pat was a little mic ****** irl anyway to begin with and angela just sucked his dick so good they both went blind


im glad anti-freeze is calling him out for the cowardly ****** he is


all bron and flamboyance. parlor tricks of a nazi ****

starwolf_nexus 12-06-2016 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by havax (Post 18685727)
you don't know what an echo chamber is if you think this thread is an echo chamber. an echo chamber is when it's pretty much 100% everyone echoing the same thing. echo chambers do not allow different opinions. if this was an echo chamber site, you would be banned, but it's not, it's a free speech site.

an echo chamber news organization is something like cnn, where everything is left leaning, and if they don't like what you have to say, they lose the satellite feed completely.

Don't forget to mention when the echo chamber news organization runs an article that draws in more people who don't agree with their message then do, they ultimately remove the comments or heavily moderate it where only agreeing opinions are posted.

Youtube is really good with this antic where SJW's remove the like buttons and disable the comments. You see this time and time again when they run Anti-gun propaganda. Some of which encourages people to violate federal law in demonstrating their "anti-gun support".

Kerosene31 12-06-2016 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fool (Post 18685735)
I won't refute that some people take it too far, but that's not the majority. If you'd care to provide a list of people among the large group of individuals that shout down anyone who disagrees with them, I'd be curious to see it. Being refuted is not being shouted down.

I think the problem is that some people want to have intelligent discussion, others just want to have fun. Either are fine. The big problem is when people mix the two and go from valid argument to stupid when they no longer feel like talking like grown ups.

Fool 12-06-2016 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by phaytal (Post 18685740)
A legal marriage is recognized by the state, not some god, and nowhere on a marriage license is there a single mention of religion.

The state is God for leftists.

KingSobieski 12-06-2016 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18685741)
No.

Did Trump win the popular vote? Was there enough voter fraud for Hillary to make up 2 million+ votes?

Yes/no/don't know

if wayne county is a small indication of the nation at large, it's very possible. If you'd like to unearth more Democratic vote rigging, I'd suggest donating to Jill Stein's doomed election recount effort.

the most pertinent investigation should've started during the primaries when Clinton stole the Nevada delegates from Bernie.

Fool 12-06-2016 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18685741)
No.

Did Trump win the popular vote? Was there enough voter fraud for Hillary to make up 2 million+ votes?

Yes/no/don't know

No and don't know. There are illegals on the voter rolls. There are discrepancies in Democrat districts.

Thankfully we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

WarBuddha 12-06-2016 12:59

It's the internet

Esteban_Villa 12-06-2016 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoMo (Post 18685729)

phew

thank god for the REAL news


http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/IMG_5159.jpg

now for some REAL opinion pieces. Government, please fix our culture so I can be at a state of equilibrium in regards to the inner conflict of my mind where i want to be lusted for but i don't need no man (but i do because I like them catcalling me)


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00.
Page 54 of 4376

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC