*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16079
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1280 on: April 29, 2017, 03:24:41 PM »
But... but... but you were the one who originally brought up... oh never mind.
I'm saying that recent US Presidents were all pampered spoiled man-children. I'm not saying you should turn this into a dick-measuring contest between them. Comparing them to one another is meaningless as far as establishing the truth of my statement goes.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1281 on: April 29, 2017, 10:44:15 PM »
But... but... but you were the one who originally brought up... oh never mind.
I'm saying that recent US Presidents were all pampered spoiled man-children. I'm not saying you should turn this into a dick-measuring contest between them. Comparing them to one another is meaningless as far as establishing the truth of my statement goes.
I don't think we're really comparing one President to another. At least I'm not. I just don't think they were really pampered, spoiled, man-children before they took office. But I guess that depends on your personal qualifiers. Money, confidence, privilege?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16079
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1282 on: May 01, 2017, 12:10:19 AM »
I don't think we're really comparing one President to another. At least I'm not.
Sorry, I should have made it clearer that that response was to Trekky.

I just don't think they were really pampered, spoiled, man-children before they took office. But I guess that depends on your personal qualifiers. Money, confidence, privilege?
I would say it's a combination of money (personally I don't like to think in terms of "privilege" because it's so hard to agree on a single definition of what it means to be privileged) and the behaviours fostered by that money. Confidence is part of it, but I think that's just a side effect of arrogance.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1283 on: May 01, 2017, 12:49:40 PM »
There will be no border wall funding in the spending bill. Instead, there is $1.5 billion in border security and $12.5 billion in US military funding.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1284 on: May 01, 2017, 03:29:42 PM »
It would be cheaper, easier, and more effective to place landmines across the southern border versus a giant wall.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7668
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1285 on: May 01, 2017, 03:56:49 PM »
It would be cheaper, easier, and more effective to place landmines across the southern border versus a giant wall.
Even on private land?

Also, wouldn't that be super easy to circumvent?  Send a donkey with a sled first and just walk behind it...
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1286 on: May 01, 2017, 04:02:17 PM »
There's also, you know, the danger of future Americans being blown up by Trump Land Mines™ when people inevitably move.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1287 on: May 01, 2017, 04:36:11 PM »
Yeah, I don't think Bill was a pampered spoiled man-child. He was raised by his grandmother and mom in New Orleans. Then his mom married an abusive, alcoholic, car salesman.

Sure, he's good ole slick Willy. But pampered and spoiled? I don't think so.

Don't forget that he's also a rapist. I guess being rich and pampered isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, or not always a reliable metric when determining the objective morality and value of a person's character.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 04:38:23 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7668
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1288 on: May 01, 2017, 04:44:30 PM »
Yeah, I don't think Bill was a pampered spoiled man-child. He was raised by his grandmother and mom in New Orleans. Then his mom married an abusive, alcoholic, car salesman.

Sure, he's good ole slick Willy. But pampered and spoiled? I don't think so.

Don't forget that he's also a rapist. I guess being rich and pampered isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, or not always a reliable metric when determining the objective morality and value of a person's character.
Bill is as much a rapist as Trump is an incestual perverted.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1289 on: May 01, 2017, 05:39:58 PM »
Don't forget that he's also a rapist. I guess being rich and pampered isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, or not always a reliable metric when determining the objective morality and value of a person's character.
That's irrelevant as that doesn't fall under pampered or spoiled. Discussing morality opens up a different can of worms.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1291 on: May 01, 2017, 10:37:47 PM »
Trump isn't display of ignorance over why the war started. He gets roasted for wondering why things couldn't have turned out differently? What a dumb fucking article.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1292 on: May 01, 2017, 11:34:49 PM »
He's also being criticized for inventing a story about a dead ex-president's response to the war.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1293 on: May 01, 2017, 11:37:43 PM »
He's also being criticized for inventing a story about a dead ex-president's response to the war.

Barely. The thrust of the article is based on inventing a meaning to Trump's comments that are a stretch to infer.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1294 on: May 02, 2017, 12:39:34 AM »
Trump isn't display of ignorance over why the war started. He gets roasted for wondering why things couldn't have turned out differently? What a dumb fucking article.

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? [...] People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Aside from making up a fake story about the dead Andrew Jackson responding to the Civil War, he's also being roasted for this attitude he does a lot, where he assumes that because he doesn't know something, nobody does (see: nobody knew healthcare would be this complicated). People don't ask the question of why there was the Civil War? Pretty sure there are entire fields filled with historians that study that very question their entire lives.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 12:41:12 AM by trekky0623 »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1295 on: May 02, 2017, 01:41:56 AM »
There's also, you know, the danger of future Americans being blown up by Trump Land Mines™ when people inevitably move.

As long as we put them on Mexico's side, it won't really matter. If anyone's hopping the American border to get to Mexico, they're probably drug or gun runners anyway.

It would be cheaper, easier, and more effective to place landmines across the southern border versus a giant wall.
Even on private land?

Also, wouldn't that be super easy to circumvent?  Send a donkey with a sled first and just walk behind it...

Then migrants have the additional burden of keeping a donkey around and coaxing it to walk ahead of them in the direction they want to go and still hoping it doesn't somehow miss a mine. Also, there can be thousands of land mines, but I don't think anyone will be capable of bringing thousands of donkeys. The threat alone of "well you might get blown up lmao" is a great solution to border hopping. It's such a great solution that nearly every country used it in WWII and people to this day get blown up every now and again in the eastern bloc countries.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 01:44:41 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3356
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1296 on: May 02, 2017, 03:18:48 AM »
>mfw people are seriously responding to Rushy's farcical suggestion
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #1297 on: May 02, 2017, 02:20:46 PM »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7668
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1298 on: May 02, 2017, 05:28:26 PM »
Obamacare Repeal 2: Electric Boogaloo is not looking so hot.


"I want it to be good for sick people. It's not in its final form right now," he [/size]said during an Oval Office interview Monday with Bloomberg News[/color][/size]. "It will be every bit as good on pre-existing conditions as Obamacare."[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]He's called it a disaster and he wants to use it as the upper limit?  Oh dear, he has mellowed over the last 100 days.[/color]


[/size]See, this here is proof that Obamacare IS popular.[/color]
[/size]Or that Republicans have lots of poor districts.  Either way, it sounds like they need to fix, not repeal.[/color]
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8578
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1299 on: May 03, 2017, 01:22:38 AM »
>mfw people are seriously responding to Rushy's farcical suggestion

I wasn't being farcical.