When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Alex Jones inexplicably seems to be suggesting violence against Wolf Blitzer, or at least not arguing against it. How could that be? I thought that was what the leftist extremists do?
When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.
Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50.
When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.
Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50.
From the reading I did, it looks like the higher the income, the higher the likelihood of voting for conservative platforms. Even if the ultra wealthy are socially liberal, they strongly tend to be economically conservative. And on a related note, sadly, plenty of research shows that lower income people tend to be more generous.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Alex Jones inexplicably seems to be suggesting violence against Wolf Blitzer, or at least not arguing against it. How could that be? I thought that was what the leftist extremists do?
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
You literally (in the correct use of the word) said "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron." What's not to understand, or pretended not to be understood?
BS44325 said: Scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that man contributes to that change. That is all they agree on. Beyond that there is no agreement. None. But what do I know...I'm just a Joe Yahoo with an MSc degree...interested in science but lumped in with all the other "deniers" for suggesting that there are "things we don't know" and that the science isn't exactly settled.
What other "agreement" needs to me made in your opinion? What science isn't "exactly settled"?
The science that isn't settled is the "significance" of man's contribution. The theory of man-made global warming makes absolute sense within a vacuum but climate change is a multi-variable dynamic where man's actions is only a part of. Science knows many of the variables but also concedes that there might be variables contributing that we are completely unaware of. When you add all of these variables together it is hard to know what portion of climate change is directly attributable to man and to be clear even most "deniers" do not believe man's contribution is zero...the argument is over whether the contribution is small or large. Lastly we do not completely understands the Earth's own biofeedback mechanisms. Similar to the body being able to regulate temperatures the earth may have it's own ability to do the same which possibly "offsets" man's contribution. Science doesn't yet have the answers to all of this and is still studying. These things are important to figure out before enacting major behaviour changing policy. The concept of "the consequences of good intentions" is real and therefore it is important to not just study man's industrial action but also to study the effects of significant over-regulation of industry for the sake of minor reductions in climate impact.
So your concern is economic impact?
It is a concern for sure. There is no such thing as an agreement free from economic ramifications...some positive and some negative.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
Alex Jones inexplicably seems to be suggesting violence against Wolf Blitzer, or at least not arguing against it. How could that be? I thought that was what the leftist extremists do?
I can't wait to see this interview... Alex Jones is s scumbag
Yes he is. I'd say he's evil.
NBC
is still planning to air an interview between Megyn Kelly and Sandy Hook
conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has said the devastating murders of our
loved ones never happened.
This interview is indefensible. Already there are
people who've made it their mission to harass our families with unbearable hate
mail and threats. This interview would give Jones' dangerous, hateful lies the
largest platform they've ever had. It would undeniably bolster him and his
supporters, and make their harassment even worse. Jones' comments in the last
72 hours make it clear that he's already basking in the exposure.
78,132 supporters have already flooded NBC with
demands to pull the interview and stop promoting this conspiracy theorist
But lets be concerned about comments on a band's fan club forum. And please show me the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones. Or the vast numbers of conservatives who have shouted him down and out. Oh wait, President Trump appeared on his program, thus endorsing his toxic stew of hate. Never mind.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
It does if you want to add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to be against without assuming responsibility for your words as you express your faux outrage.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
I thought everyone knew that the words "denier" and "resist" didn't exist until WWII.
When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.
Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50.
From the reading I did, it looks like the higher the income, the higher the likelihood of voting for conservative platforms. Even if the ultra wealthy are socially liberal, they strongly tend to be economically conservative. And on a related note, sadly, plenty of research shows that lower income people tend to be more generous.
I read an article, maybe it was Pew Research, that talked about wealthy people tend to vote Dem when they live in wealthy areas, and wealthy who live in poor areas tend to vote R.
When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.
Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50.
From the reading I did, it looks like the higher the income, the higher the likelihood of voting for conservative platforms. Even if the ultra wealthy are socially liberal, they strongly tend to be economically conservative. And on a related note, sadly, plenty of research shows that lower income people tend to be more generous.
I read an article, maybe it was Pew Research, that talked about wealthy people tend to vote Dem when they live in wealthy areas, and wealthy who live in poor areas tend to vote R.
Interesting. Can you find it? What I read suggested just that the social policies may differ depending on region but not so much the economic beliefs.
Also, there was an interesting observational study mentioned that looked at voting patterns prior to and after winning a major lottery. There was a clear shift to becoming registered Republicans after getting rich.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
You literally (in the correct use of the word) said "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron." What's not to understand, or pretended not to be understood?
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
You literally (in the correct use of the word) said "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron." What's not to understand, or pretended not to be understood?
"Adolf Hitler was born in Austria."
Guess I'm a moron, too.
If you say so.
You made the rule, not me.
Thanks for the Friday laugh. This has to be the stupid argument on the train in a while. Arguing something when really everyone knew the real intention of the comment. So yeah you seem like a .... I can't type it. Don't want Kat to ban me over this silly 5 year old like argument!!!
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
It's a lame association by some individuals attempting another false equivalency. What I want to know from BS is how do I become a member of the resistance, what qualifications do I need, and how much will Soros pay me?
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I don't think I have ever listened to Alex Jones other then when he was on Howard Stern.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I don't think I have ever listened to Alex Jones other then when he was on Howard Stern.
So you give him a pass? Makes sense. I've never read Mein Kampf. I guess it's okay then.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
It is not supposed to occur to you. That is the point. It is subtle. The subtlety is a way to avoid the moronic "hitler" sentences we have already discussed. For the last year all I have read on here is that Make America Great Again is supposed to harken back to the days of slavery! If MAGA was super-subtle then "resistance" and "denier" is a giant flashing "conservatives are nazis" sign.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
You literally (in the correct use of the word) said "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron." What's not to understand, or pretended not to be understood?
When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
It is not supposed to occur to you. That is the point. It is subtle. The subtlety is a way to avoid the moronic "hitler" sentences we have already discussed. For the last year all I have read on here is that Make America Great Again is supposed to harken back to the days of slavery! If MAGA was super-subtle then "resistance" and "denier" is a giant flashing "conservatives are nazis" sign.
Right. Absolutely. So your argument is essentially that you're right if we agree with your opinion on how these words are being used, and you're also right if we don't agree, because we simply haven't recognized it. That's laughable, particularly when one considers the history of usage of words like resistance.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I don't think I have ever listened to Alex Jones other then when he was on Howard Stern.
So you give him a pass? Makes sense. I've never read Mein Kampf. I guess it's okay then.
Perfect example of a moronic "Hitler" comparison. Mein Kampf is a major historical book that most people are familiar with whether they have read it or not. One can and should easily have an opinion on it. Alex Jones is an American talk personality that only a segment of your country pays attention too. To be unfamiliar with his every utterance would be quite normal for most of the population and to be unaware of shit he says would not be the equivalent of saying "Mein Kampf is ok". Thanks for your class participation. It has been helpful.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
It is not supposed to occur to you. That is the point. It is subtle. The subtlety is a way to avoid the moronic "hitler" sentences we have already discussed. For the last year all I have read on here is that Make America Great Again is supposed to harken back to the days of slavery! If MAGA was super-subtle then "resistance" and "denier" is a giant flashing "conservatives are nazis" sign.
Right. Absolutely. So your argument is essentially that you're right if we agree with your opinion on how these words are being used, and you're also right if we don't agree, because we simply haven't recognized it. That's laughable, particularly when one considers the history of usage of words like resistance.
Well...of course I am always right...that is number 1. More importantly though the words we are comparing are "Again", "Resistance", and "Denier". Now I personally find "Again" to be pretty dam innocuous but if you are one who finds "Again" to be the pinnacle of subtle racism then in their context you sure as hell should take issue with the words "Resistance" and "Denier". But either way...I'm always right.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
It is not supposed to occur to you. That is the point. It is subtle. The subtlety is a way to avoid the moronic "hitler" sentences we have already discussed. For the last year all I have read on here is that Make America Great Again is supposed to harken back to the days of slavery! If MAGA was super-subtle then "resistance" and "denier" is a giant flashing "conservatives are nazis" sign.
Where did anyone post that MAGA harkens to the days of slavery? My god do you project your toxic stew. I seriously don't recall reading MAGA=days of slavery.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I don't think I have ever listened to Alex Jones other then when he was on Howard Stern.
So you give him a pass? Makes sense. I've never read Mein Kampf. I guess it's okay then.
Perfect example of a moronic "Hitler" comparison. Mein Kampf is a major historical book that most people are familiar with whether they have read it or not. One can and should easily have an opinion on it. Alex Jones is an American talk personality that only a segment of your country pays attention too. To be unfamiliar with his every utterance would be quite normal for most of the population and to be unaware of shit he says would not be the equivalent of saying "Mein Kampf is ok". Thanks for your class participation. It has been helpful.
Being ignorant isn't an excuse but I suppose it offers you plausible deniability for not condemning him.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."
I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict.
It is not supposed to occur to you. That is the point. It is subtle. The subtlety is a way to avoid the moronic "hitler" sentences we have already discussed. For the last year all I have read on here is that Make America Great Again is supposed to harken back to the days of slavery! If MAGA was super-subtle then "resistance" and "denier" is a giant flashing "conservatives are nazis" sign.
Right. Absolutely. So your argument is essentially that you're right if we agree with your opinion on how these words are being used, and you're also right if we don't agree, because we simply haven't recognized it. That's laughable, particularly when one considers the history of usage of words like resistance.
Well...of course I am always right...that is number 1. More importantly though the words we are comparing are "Again", "Resistance", and "Denier". Now I personally find "Again" to be pretty dam innocuous but if you are one who finds "Again" to be the pinnacle of subtle racism then in their context you sure as hell should take issue with the words "Resistance" and "Denier". But either way...I'm always right.
You're so far right you're wrong but I don't think you're evil.
Comments
Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alex-jones-blitzer-bullets_us_5943106ce4b06bb7d27214f8
more generous.
It is a concern for sure. There is no such thing as an agreement free from economic ramifications...some positive and some negative.
Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Yes he is. I'd say he's evil.
NBC is still planning to air an interview between Megyn Kelly and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has said the devastating murders of our loved ones never happened.
This interview is indefensible. Already there are people who've made it their mission to harass our families with unbearable hate mail and threats. This interview would give Jones' dangerous, hateful lies the largest platform they've ever had. It would undeniably bolster him and his supporters, and make their harassment even worse. Jones' comments in the last 72 hours make it clear that he's already basking in the exposure.
78,132 supporters have already flooded NBC with demands to pull the interview and stop promoting this conspiracy theorist
But lets be concerned about comments on a band's fan club forum. And please show me the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones. Or the vast numbers of conservatives who have shouted him down and out. Oh wait, President Trump appeared on his program, thus endorsing his toxic stew of hate. Never mind.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Also, there was an interesting observational study mentioned that looked at voting patterns prior to and after winning a major lottery. There was a clear shift to becoming registered Republicans after getting rich.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It is not supposed to occur to you. That is the point. It is subtle. The subtlety is a way to avoid the moronic "hitler" sentences we have already discussed. For the last year all I have read on here is that Make America Great Again is supposed to harken back to the days of slavery! If MAGA was super-subtle then "resistance" and "denier" is a giant flashing "conservatives are nazis" sign.
Don't be thick in front of me Al.
Nice try? That is how it played out my friend
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/23/the-rich-vote-republican-maybe-not-this-time.html
The democrats lost the working class
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.1c3070ade932
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Did i do it right guyz?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©