Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Copperfield]

(11-09-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:26 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump would combine Hitler and Lincoln in the same sentence if he could get away with it.

Donald Trump will quickly turn upon the 'deplorable' people that voted him. He no longer needs them. He will suck up to the 'Establishment' types who have money and media that the common man do not have. After all it is easier to force low wages and brutal management upon working people than it is to deliver those wages.

It never fails. The GOP elites are loyal only to lucre.

Do you actually think about the things you write before you write them?

1.  Combining Lincoln with Hitler is easy.  I imagine both liked mashed potatoes.  As do I.  Am I Hitler?  No.  Am I Lincoln?  No.  But of the two he's far closer to Lincoln than Hitler.

2.  Trump doesn't need their money.  He didn't take it to win office, and he doesn't need it now.  The man is disgustingly rich.  What are they going to offer him?  He already has everything a man could possibly want.

3.  Limiting the supply of labor by enforcing immigration laws and protecting native industry will raise wages and aid in labor organization, not the reverse.  If anything his plan is actually against his own class interests.  We had an other president who was a traitor to his class, I bet you think the sun shines out of his crippled ass.

4.  Who says the GOP elites are going to stay in the GOP.  The elites go to which ever party represents their interests.  They could care less if the mascot is an elephant or a donkey.

The fact is that I posted many ages ago on this forum, and on the old one that I thought that Trump was the GC, assuming the GC must be a political leader.  The fact is that history has already vindicated my position and is vindicating my position.  The Republic was saved on 8th November 2016.

KInser, you're still working awful hard to try to make yourself look smart.  It's not working.

Yours wasn't a prediction; it was a desperate hope.

Trump isn't about money per se.  He's about domination.  Take Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together and they come no where near the power and capacity to dominate this world as the POTUS.  He literally will have in his power to end all sentiment life on this planet in a manner of moments.  If you think Trump is free to do good, however you want to define that, because he's rich and doesn't have to abide to any one for money, you are probable one of the most clueless people on this forum.

If we survive this, the GC will be the one that takes away the awesome power that you morons handed over to the orange anus clown.

Hey, how did that presidential election between the two New York City democrats work out anyway? I haven't heard...

[Eric the Green]

Oh for the good old days!!!

[Eric the Green]

Classic Xer may get exactly what he wants.

The Null Deal

A Trump presidency could be the end of the social safety net and the beginning of something uglier.

By Jamelle Bouie
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...trump.html

After Republicans won control in Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, they embarked on a vast project of ideological governance. Free from any checks or balances, they went to war with the idea of the “public”—anything that couldn’t go into the pockets of businesses or wealthy individuals was gutted, slashed, and left for dead. There’s a strong chance that, under President Trump and a GOP Congress, we will see the same for the nation at large. And depending on the appetite of the Republican Party—and the willingness of President Trump—we may see a sweeping repudiation of liberal-democratic governance, with an end to the guarantees of the New Deal and the Great Society. Americans who think the change of government means little for their lives are in for a surprise.

With a Republican president in the White House and majorities in the Senate and the House, Speaker Paul Ryan has the fuel he needs to enact his “road map,” an expansive plan to roll back the American welfare state, such that it exists. Essentially, to replicate for the country what Sam Brownback and Bobby Jindal have done for their respective states. What should we expect?

With President Trump’s signature, Ryan will repeal the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and much of the legislative legacy of the Obama administration. He will craft and pass a massive package of tax cuts and “tax reform” that will deprive the federal government of revenue and fundamentally change the relationship between it and the American public.

Now that white nationalism sits at the center of our politics, figures on both sides will reconcile and accommodate themselves to it.

It’s still unclear what the executive branch will look like under President Trump. But he’ll be responsible for thousands of appointments in countless federal agencies. Given his promises—to build a wall on the Mexican border, to ban Muslims from the United States and surveil those within our borders—Trump’s most important appointments may be in federal law enforcement. What does the Department of Justice look like under an Attorney General Rudy Giuliani? Does it maintain the present effort to address racial inequities in policing, or does it embrace the police and their most reactionary elements, bestowing impunity on those who abuse their state-sanctioned right to kill? Judging from Giuliani’s record, Trump’s DOJ does the latter. We can ask the same question of Trump’s proposed nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee, infamous for his attacks on Black Lives Matter and his near-insurrectionist rhetoric. When a president runs on the use of state power against disfavored minorities, what can we expect from his nominees and his agencies?

The most monumental change will be in the character of the Republican Party itself. After the 2012 election, Republican reformers begged the party to expand—to include the groups that were repulsed by Mitt Romney and his campaign. The only way the GOP could succeed, they argued, was to reconcile itself to the changing demographics of the country. This was wrong. There was a way the Republican Party could succeed: by abandoning the ideal of racial equality and reshaping itself as a party of white reaction and white backlash. Rather than win nonwhites, Republicans could radicalize whites through demagoguery and race baiting. They could activate white racism and shape it into a potent political force. It’s not a new strategy—it was old hat in the age of Jim Crow, where Southern aristocrats ran populist campaigns of “nigger baiting”—but it was untested in the 21st century, an antiquated relic of a less civilized age. We now know this works. With a racist campaign, Republicans can win a decisive share of white voters, from working-class whites—who voted on Tuesday like an ethnic bloc—to college-educated whites and younger, ostensibly “tolerant” whites.

Top Comment:

I am told I am supposed to empathize with the plight of the rural poor who supported Trump. But, personally, I am tired of all of these PC, social-justice warriors telling me what to say and think. More...

Political parties almost always take the path of least resistance. And for the Republican Party in 2016, that path has been paved with a message of white nationalism and herrenvolk democracy. Of government for Us, not for Them. If there’s anything to expect going forward, it’s that other politicians will emerge who follow Trump’s lead and adopt elements of his approach. And not just on the right. Now that white nationalism sits at the center of our politics, figures on both sides will reconcile and accommodate themselves to it. They will grasp the opportunity that he and his presidency represents. Trump has shown the explosive power of white reaction in American politics. Soon, others will wield it for themselves.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, the problem is that it is the SJW cult and their version of political correctness that has gone too far.  Given the choice between some moron calling me a racial epithet that begins with the letter n and someone assuming that I require affirmative action to get a job or a place at a university because of my race, which is the more detrimental racism?

I could try to explain it but I've tried with Boomers thousands of times and the problem is that they are stuck in the 20th century and don't see the reality of the 21st.

Part of that is subjective.  Do you need or value a job more, or respect?  I would think most would expect and desire both.  Being arbitrarily denied either out of bigotry and hatred seems problematic.

It is also a question of whether the university in question is practicing clear discrimination.   If everyone above a certain rank happens to be white male and protestant, I would favor the SJW over the bigots.  If the balance is close enough to the statistical norm of the local population, if there is no clear evidence of bigots behaving badly, I'd mutter something about the SJW not being an (expletive deleted) and walk on by.

But it's not just job markets, it's how people treat one another.  My sister is a teacher.  There is an increasing bullying problem.  I was bullied enough as a kid that I don't like it one bit.  At this point I'm less concerned about job equality than people treating each other with respect.  Suppressing prejudice and hatred is a long hard process.  Taking a large step backwards seems like a bad idea.

Can we instill respect today? You can teach kids the meaning of the word. You can tell them what respect is about and the positives associated with the term. But, can you instill it like it was instilled into me as a kid. How many parents are blessed with angels for kids? The way we are expected to raise our kids today assumes that we are all being blessed with angels today. Children who are all born with respect, who can do no wrong who are all perfect angels. Does that sound realistic to you? What's our choices today? We can take a bit risk and swat our kids in our homes, medicate them or pay a hefty price for counseling. Whatever happened to threatening a kid? What happened to the use of corporal punishment? What happened to an adult ruffing up a kid as a means to instill respect? What happened to a group of kids or a kid beating up a bully? Did the uppity liberals take those rights away? I have respect but I'm not going to give it someone who doesn't show it or act like they have it. Granting respect ain't going to instill respect or automatically result in a world with respect.

[pbrower2a]

(11-10-2016, 06:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, the problem is that it is the SJW cult and their version of political correctness that has gone too far.  Given the choice between some moron calling me a racial epithet that begins with the letter n and someone assuming that I require affirmative action to get a job or a place at a university because of my race, which is the more detrimental racism?

I could try to explain it but I've tried with Boomers thousands of times and the problem is that they are stuck in the 20th century and don't see the reality of the 21st.

Part of that is subjective.  Do you need or value a job more, or respect?  I would think most would expect and desire both.  Being arbitrarily denied either out of bigotry and hatred seems problematic.

It is also a question of whether the university in question is practicing clear discrimination.   If everyone above a certain rank happens to be white male and protestant, I would favor the SJW over the bigots.  If the balance is close enough to the statistical norm of the local population, if there is no clear evidence of bigots behaving badly, I'd mutter something about the SJW not being an (expletive deleted) and walk on by.

But it's not just job markets, it's how people treat one another.  My sister is a teacher.  There is an increasing bullying problem.  I was bullied enough as a kid that I don't like it one bit.  At this point I'm less concerned about job equality than people treating each other with respect.  Suppressing prejudice and hatred is a long hard process.  Taking a large step backwards seems like a bad idea.

Can we instill respect today? You can teach kids the meaning of the word. You can tell them what respect is about and the positives associated with the term. But, can you instill it like it was instilled into me as a kid. How many parents are blessed with angels for kids? The way we are expected to raise our kids today assumes that we are all being blessed with angels today. Children who are all born with respect, who can do no wrong who are all perfect angels. Does that sound realistic to you? What's our choices today? We can take a bit risk and swat our kids in our homes, medicate them or pay a hefty price for counseling. Whatever happened to threatening a kid? What happened to the use of corporal punishment? What happened to an adult ruffing up a kid as a means to instill respect? What happened to a group of kids or a kid beating up a bully? Did the uppity liberals take those rights away? I have respect but I'm not going to give it someone who doesn't show it or act like they have it. Granting respect ain't going to instill respect or automatically result in a world with respect.

Donald Trump will instill FEAR, for a short time the most powerful driver of effort. Eventually it wears people down.

I expect America to go back anywhere from 40 to 100 years in living conditions for anyone not already rich. The Master Class will get practically everything and leave the workers with nothing but tears, hunger, and exhaustion. Meanwhile I expect the Republicans to everything possible to ensure that they never lose an election that they don't want to lose.  They will allow things to look close, but they will ensure that they get the right votes in the right places so that they can preserve their absolute plutocracy.

Looking to a Trump Presidency is like looking forward to a term in penal confinement.

[Kinser79]

I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer. Quite simply it isn't effective parenting. Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid. You may as well quote from the National Inquirer. No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

I never received a crack on the ass that wasn't deserved. My views come from first hand knowledge and experience as usual. Knowing the result it had with me, I consider it to be a positive thing as far as my life is concerned.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-11-2016, 01:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: What is the answer of what to replace the current hostile environment? Here have been a few suggestions by someone that i know. A fellow millennial. I totally agree with this list.

"1. If they are complete strangers and you don't have some type of skill-set in persuading people (negotiator, educator on related topics, etc) I would not even bother. Frankly, it takes a lot of patience that I don't see in many people. If you view the person you are trying to persuade as an adversary, there is a good chance that things will go south by the end of the exchange.

The rest of these are assuming you have some type of relationship to the person, even if you are just acquaintances. I also think that they mainly work with in-person interactions. For the specific situation you gave, I think social media is a horrible mismatched medium to use. Without an actual physical body to interact with, these tools get harder to use.

2. Active listening, labeling and mirroring. This is most of what you will be doing. People have their own ideas of what the term "systemic racism" even means. Let someone explain their views/understanding. Resist the need to label them ("you are ignorant, racist, etc"). That will derail the entire conversation. The individual can't absorb information while trying to defend him/herself. You need to know what they know. Mirror back what they said, so both parties can confirm that you understood their viewpoint correctly. Once they confirm it, you can actually *start* the conversation.

3. Don't force someone to admit you are right. That's not the point of the interaction and if someone senses this, they will instinctively resist what you say.

4. Rinse and repeat. When you get to the end of step 2, you can start providing information. But even with that, the persuader has to stay even-tempered and non-judgmental. Avoid starting sentences with "Why". Why is accusatory and puts people into defense mode."

There will always be some hostility between right and left wing posters. As you can see, we really don't like each other very much for obvious reasons. It's going to tame down eventually but the hostilities toward one another will always be there. I'm OK with it. I'm not here to make friends with people like Eric and Playdude. Bob's tolerable but I'm not at all interested in meeting him. I'm sure that he feels the same way about me.

[Galen]

(11-11-2016, 12:17 AM)taramarie Wrote: Watch the video under this heading "Pie thinks he knows who is to blame for the rise of Trump...and you're not going to like it!"

Certain people here should watch this. In fact all could benefit from watching this as this happens on both sides.

What caused the rise of Trump

Not a complete explanation but certainly a very big chunk of the problem.  Score one for the kiwi. 

[Galen]

(11-11-2016, 02:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: An interesting article that breaks down country folk vs urban folk through media and how it applies to the world around us to explain the Trump phenomenon.

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

Having lived among both populations I can say there is much truth in that article.  Again, the kiwi is making good observations.

It is one of the nasty little side effects of the centralization of the last century.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-10-2016, 05:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not fighting with Bob. I pointed out to Bob where his partisan views of me were way off again. I associate Bob with a party that regularly engages, encourages, supports and allows the use of anti-white sentiment. The Democrats aren't very smart people. Smart people don't do or allow stupid shit that creates a bigger issue for themselves. Are Democrats capable of pulling their heads out of their asses and using them as intended. We'll see.

I don't see myself as anti-white.  I am white.  I associate with whites.  Remember how during the election Trump pointed out a black guy at one of his rallies?  I can't do this at the moment.  I'm somewhat reclusive, have a small number of close friends and social groups...  Oh.  Wait.  One of the gamers in my Pathfinder RPG circle is black!  I guess I'm at least as integrated as Trump.  I can point at a black person too!  I guess I forgot as her skin pigmentation just doesn't matter to the group at all.  Not a whit.

But I'm not anti-white.  I'm anti-bigot.  It seems to me that many among the Trump deplorables have difficulty distinguishing between the two.  I favor equality, civility, mutual respect, and much else mentioned among Jefferson's self evident truths.  These are core values.  As is typical of humans, I get intense and emotional about defending and advocating my core values.

It is quite possible to dislike racists without disliking whites.  Deplorables might not be able to see this.  Some are so obsessed with the black-white conflict that it becomes us or them at a primal level.

Anyway, in many respects, don't expect Democrats to always be logical and rational.  They have core values that aren't going to shift.  They see the world from a different angle.  They do not see striving for equality, harmony and inclusiveness as stupid.  They are more apt to see it as virtue.  This in the short turn my lead to conflict, but sometimes conflict is appropriate or necessary.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-11-2016, 02:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: An interesting article that breaks down country folk vs urban folk through media and how it applies to the world around us to explain the Trump phenomenon.

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

An interesting article.  I note a conflict between two of the rural stereotypes mentioned.  I agree the rural innocent hero stereotype appears in many movies.  I agree the stupid scorned rural butt of jokes character is also common.  The two stereotypes are in conflict, though.

[Odin]

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

Corporal punishment teaches kids that it is OK to react violently to problems involving other people being dicks.

And for me personally grounding me from my Nintendo was far more effective than spanking ever was.

[Odin]

(11-11-2016, 02:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: An interesting article that breaks down country folk vs urban folk through media and how it applies to the world around us to explain the Trump phenomenon.

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

I already posted this in another thread.

I am from the exact kind of rural environment this writer is talking about and he is 100% correct. Folks out here are the butt of jokes, we are derided as "dumb, racist gun-toting hicks" by the urban intelligentsia, often with nasty insinuations that we are inbred, too. When we try to complain of our economic troubles all we get are rants about how even caring about poor rural whites is inherently racist.

[Odin]

(11-11-2016, 01:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: 2. Active listening, labeling and mirroring. This is most of what you will be doing. People have their own ideas of what the term "systemic racism" even means. Let someone explain their views/understanding. Resist the need to label them ("you are ignorant, racist, etc"). That will derail the entire conversation. The individual can't absorb information while trying to defend him/herself. You need to know what they know. Mirror back what they said, so both parties can confirm that you understood their viewpoint correctly. Once they confirm it, you can actually *start* the conversation.

This is the big thing sorely lacking here in the US right now.

[Marypoza]

(11-10-2016, 06:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:26 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump would combine Hitler and Lincoln in the same sentence if he could get away with it.

Donald Trump will quickly turn upon the 'deplorable' people that voted him. He no longer needs them. He will suck up to the 'Establishment' types who have money and media that the common man do not have. After all it is easier to force low wages and brutal management upon working people than it is to deliver those wages.

It never fails. The GOP elites are loyal only to lucre.

Do you actually think about the things you write before you write them?

1.  Combining Lincoln with Hitler is easy.  I imagine both liked mashed potatoes.  As do I.  Am I Hitler?  No.  Am I Lincoln?  No.  But of the two he's far closer to Lincoln than Hitler.

2.  Trump doesn't need their money.  He didn't take it to win office, and he doesn't need it now.  The man is disgustingly rich.  What are they going to offer him?  He already has everything a man could possibly want.

3.  Limiting the supply of labor by enforcing immigration laws and protecting native industry will raise wages and aid in labor organization, not the reverse.  If anything his plan is actually against his own class interests.  We had an other president who was a traitor to his class, I bet you think the sun shines out of his crippled ass.

4.  Who says the GOP elites are going to stay in the GOP.  The elites go to which ever party represents their interests.  They could care less if the mascot is an elephant or a donkey.

The fact is that I posted many ages ago on this forum, and on the old one that I thought that Trump was the GC, assuming the GC must be a political leader.  The fact is that history has already vindicated my position and is vindicating my position.  The Republic was saved on 8th November 2016.

KInser, you're still working awful hard to try to make yourself look smart.  It's not working.

Yours wasn't a prediction; it was a desperate hope.

Trump isn't about money per se.  He's about domination.  Take Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together and they come no where near the power and capacity to dominate this world as the POTUS.  He literally will have in his power to end all sentiment life on this planet in a manner of moments.  If you think Trump is free to do good, however you want to define that, because he's rich and doesn't have to abide to any one for money, you are probable one of the most clueless people on this forum.

If we survive this, the GC will be the one that takes away the awesome power that you morons handed over to the orange anus clown.

Hey, how did that presidential election between the two New York City democrats work out anyway? I haven't heard...

--- rofl.... except $hillary's a Goldwater Girl & proud if it so that makes her a de facto repug


RE: Kinser's 2nd point- isn't the Donald donating his presidential salary or something?

[Marypoza]

(11-11-2016, 07:59 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 01:51 AM)taramarie Wrote: 2. Active listening, labeling and mirroring. This is most of what you will be doing. People have their own ideas of what the term "systemic racism" even means. Let someone explain their views/understanding. Resist the need to label them ("you are ignorant, racist, etc"). That will derail the entire conversation. The individual can't absorb information while trying to defend him/herself. You need to know what they know. Mirror back what they said, so both parties can confirm that you understood their viewpoint correctly. Once they confirm it, you can actually *start* the conversation.

This is the big thing sorely lacking here in the US right now.

-- l put this squarely on  the obots. Anybody who had any honest criticism of Himself &/or his policies was derided as ray-sist, stripping away any real meaning from the word. This has only been stopping in the past yr, with the advent of the TPP,  & the realization  that obummercrap is just that, & a ponzi scheme to benefit insurance companies

[Classic-Xer]

(11-11-2016, 07:49 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

Corporal punishment teaches kids that it is OK to react violently to problems involving other people being dicks.

And for me personally grounding me from my Nintendo was far more effective than spanking ever was.

OK. You seem to know everything. So, good luck with solving the increase in bullying, lack of discipline and lack of respect occurring in schools.

[playwrite]

(11-11-2016, 09:26 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 06:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:52 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:26 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-09-2016, 08:18 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump would combine Hitler and Lincoln in the same sentence if he could get away with it.

Donald Trump will quickly turn upon the 'deplorable' people that voted him. He no longer needs them. He will suck up to the 'Establishment' types who have money and media that the common man do not have. After all it is easier to force low wages and brutal management upon working people than it is to deliver those wages.

It never fails. The GOP elites are loyal only to lucre.

Do you actually think about the things you write before you write them?

1.  Combining Lincoln with Hitler is easy.  I imagine both liked mashed potatoes.  As do I.  Am I Hitler?  No.  Am I Lincoln?  No.  But of the two he's far closer to Lincoln than Hitler.

2.  Trump doesn't need their money.  He didn't take it to win office, and he doesn't need it now.  The man is disgustingly rich.  What are they going to offer him?  He already has everything a man could possibly want.

3.  Limiting the supply of labor by enforcing immigration laws and protecting native industry will raise wages and aid in labor organization, not the reverse.  If anything his plan is actually against his own class interests.  We had an other president who was a traitor to his class, I bet you think the sun shines out of his crippled ass.

4.  Who says the GOP elites are going to stay in the GOP.  The elites go to which ever party represents their interests.  They could care less if the mascot is an elephant or a donkey.

The fact is that I posted many ages ago on this forum, and on the old one that I thought that Trump was the GC, assuming the GC must be a political leader.  The fact is that history has already vindicated my position and is vindicating my position.  The Republic was saved on 8th November 2016.

KInser, you're still working awful hard to try to make yourself look smart.  It's not working.

Yours wasn't a prediction; it was a desperate hope.

Trump isn't about money per se.  He's about domination.  Take Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together and they come no where near the power and capacity to dominate this world as the POTUS.  He literally will have in his power to end all sentiment life on this planet in a manner of moments.  If you think Trump is free to do good, however you want to define that, because he's rich and doesn't have to abide to any one for money, you are probable one of the most clueless people on this forum.

If we survive this, the GC will be the one that takes away the awesome power that you morons handed over to the orange anus clown.

Hey, how did that presidential election between the two New York City democrats work out anyway? I haven't heard...

--- rofl.... except $hillary's a Goldwater Girl & proud if it so that makes her a de facto repug


RE: Kinser's 2nd point- isn't the Donald donating his presidential salary or something?

One of the very few silver linings of this election is it will devastate the "false equivalency" meme of the Far Left nitwits.

President Pussygrabber and his minion in Congress are going to devastate you over the next 4 years.

The only question is how many nitwits will grow a brain and grasp what is happening to them, and why.

[Eric the Green]

(11-11-2016, 12:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 07:49 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 06:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have to disagree with the use of corporeal punishment Classic Xer.  Quite simply it isn't effective parenting.  Of course my views are informed by Stephan Molyneux's work on that topic.

@Eric-the-ignoramus

Slate is a tabloid.  You may as well quote from the National Inquirer.  No wait, that rag has a better reputation. But at least it isn't the Huffington Compost.

Corporal punishment teaches kids that it is OK to react violently to problems involving other people being dicks.

And for me personally grounding me from my Nintendo was far more effective than spanking ever was.

OK. You seem to know everything. So,  good luck with solving the increase in  bullying,  lack of discipline and lack of respect  occurring in schools.

Well, you voted for it pal. We have a BULLY IN CHIEF, and he sets the example for the nation. Violence and punishment may well become norms again. And that's just what the young people will learn: violence and bullying pays. Lack of respect on steroids, all encouraged by the Disrespecter in Chief that you voted for. Good luck with that.