Dumb Political Correctness

Clean said:
The EMU Chief of Police's conclusion that Eddie Curlin wasn't motivated by politics or race because "....
Click to expand...

Like the guy who yells "Allahu Akbar" before he kills someone. Police say "motivation unknown." No, the motivation is not unknown, he just told you. Apparently you can be an official and be devoid of reality as long as you belong to the favored political party. A parallel here can be drawn to Hollywood where you can wantonly assault young females (or males) as long as you donate to the Dems.
 
ShAArk92 said:
...Seriously ... he needs to be put away, put down, or "fixed" or something ... and the #MeToo ers (not all who've been sexually assaulted, btw, but the SJWers who are ironically/tragically aligned politically with this guy) need to understand they've contributed to this very thing ... and wake-up, themselves.
Click to expand...

Thats the part of the story not discussed.
If you are of sound mind and make the choice to sell your body for a job, is this not consistent with modern feminism?
(assuming no party to the transaction is a minor)
 
Seattle Husker said:
Trump has repeatedly said "you'll have great health insurance" while chipping away at Obamacare. That as big a lie as Obama's initial lie.
Click to expand...

No, it's not even close. Obama's initial lie was a flat-out fabrication, which was never going to happen. Trump's point is at the very worst a subjective opinion with which you disagree.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
No, it's not even close. Obama's initial lie was a flat-out fabrication, which was never going to happen. Trump's point is at the very worst a subjective opinion with which you disagree.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're giving credit for ambiguity? He's also said "you'll have cheaper insurance" but since he didn't say "your current plan will be better and cheaper" it's at worst subjective.
 
nashhorn said:
Assigned the female gender at birth. Assigned? Is that what they call it? Good grief.
Click to expand...

This often happened in the past with hermaphrodites. The doctor would ask the parent "do you want them to be a male or female" and the parent would choose. I seriously doubt the parents said "I have a boy but wanted a girl so please make it so."
 
So now they're accusing extremely elderly people of sexual harassment. If this was legit the hospitals and nursing homes would be shut down from all the offended health workers on paid leave.

Both sexes are known for this in their very late years. It's like having the regressed mind of a child in many cases.

We don't accuse 8 year olds of sexually harassing adults when they say/do weird sexually related stuff without knowing better. Gimme a break.
 
Brad Austin said:
So now they're accusing extremely elderly people of sexual harassment. If this was legit the hospitals and nursing homes would be shut down from all the offended health workers on paid leave.

Both sexes are known for this in their very late years. It's like having the regressed mind of a child in many cases.

We don't accuse 8 year olds of sexually harassing adults when they say/do weird sexually related stuff without knowing better. Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

Is it reduced mental faculties or simply IDGAF? Outside of Alzhiemer's cases, it's usually the latter in my limited experience.
 
Both, in my experience but you're right about the similarities in nearly all dementia cases, particularly as desease progresses. As I've said before dementia (and most of all) Alzheimer's, SUCKS.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Wait, you're giving credit for ambiguity? He's also said "you'll have cheaper insurance" but since he didn't say "your current plan will be better and cheaper" it's at worst subjective.
Click to expand...

You didn't say anything about cheaper insurance. You said that he said it would be better, while chipping away at Obamacare, implying that if he chips away at Obamacare, then it would be factually false that insurance would be better. That's opinion. He may believe it. It's might be true in general. Regardless, it's subjective. Telling people that they will be able to keep their current plan when you know they will not is a lie.

The point made wasn't about which one was more right, the point was made that both are equally dishonest (at least from how I read it) and my response was that no, they are not equally dishonest. If you argue that you want to help the middle class, and then you approve an open borders policy and raise the tax rate across the board, then I might argue that your policy doesn't match your claim or that you're doing a lousy job helping the middle class, but I couldn't argue that you were lying about wanting to help the middle class, because it's possible that you actually thought you WERE helping by implementing those policies (or at least not hurting.)
 
Here are some actual Trump quotes.
"We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump told The Washington Post. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."
"[They] can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better," he said.

Accurate? In my opinion about par for Trump statements.
 
Last edited:
yes ... vague ideals in his campaign which is why I was convinced his marketing genius was being used to derail any real conservative's opportunity and help "her" win it.

that's still a far cry from "will be less expensive, keep your plan, keep your doctor" when it was known at the time (as we've since learned) that was NOT ever going to happen.
 
I kept my plan and kept my doctors. Really did. Costs went up and I voluntarily moved to a high deductible plan with an HSA. Don't know if my company or Obama should get credit for me having a more fiscally solid plan that discourages cohorts from abusing insurance plans.
 
Last edited:
I did too, but our experience isn't the "norm." You must also have a "cadillac union plan." Those are about the only ones not radically affected by ACA ... but they're contractual benefits, too ... so it's not exactly apples/apples.
 
Crockett said:
Accurate? In my opinion about par for Trump statements.
Click to expand...

I don't think ever in American History that we can point to a candidate and say they did exactly everything they promised.......actually not even close. For the most part, Trump is doing are trying to do what he promised. Some things he hasn't and other things he can't get Congress to move on. But many things he has. That's a lot more than almost all the politicians.
 
Crockett said:
Ain't no union where I work.
Click to expand...

then yours is a rare experience indeed.

our premiums increased ... not quite $2500 as was the average for those who weren't in a group plan ... but the point remains. They knew it then, when they were making those statements ... complete lies.

Trump is a master marketeer and will say outlandish things ... and he's probably even told things which he knew wasn't true ... and he's said some things in the campaign he later learned couldn't be true ... but anyhow.

If you want to think Trump's statements have less truth, whether from incompetence or negligence, than did BHO, this exchange isn't going to alter your perception.
 
So a guy trying to stop funding for Medicaid insurance and subsidies for poor people's insurance while insurance/healthcare costs continue to grow unabated should be given credit for trying to fulfilling his promises for universal care should be given a "mostly truthful" while Obama is a despicable liar? OK .... trying to get my head around truth, fake news, ordinary politics. Not getting there yet.
 
Last edited:
Of that I have no doubt ... because your glasses have tint, too.

BHO knew, or should have known, he wasn't being truthful with those details. I'm not defending Trump. He doesn't need me to do so ... the problem is in the equivocation. They are hardly equal in terms of lacking integrity.

My estimation of it ... Neither BHO NOR Trump need to be establishing government health insurance. THERE'S an equivalence. As POTUS/US Govt, NEITHER represent a legitimate use of the authority nor resource.
 
Now it is Mark Halperin's turn
He of MSNBC (Morning Joe) & Bloomberg
Accused by five women of sexual harassment

He now recognizes that pressing his genitals against a work colleague is inappropriate
DNCTn0kX4AEMdmG.jpg
 
Can't believe Heather Lind used the words "sexual assault" regarding Bush 41's alleged touching. That's a serious charge.

How can you be sexually assaulted with six or seven other people around, including his wife, and the group is being photographed at the time? The whole thing smacks of Hollywood Hyperbole.
 
Clean said:
Can't believe Heather Lind used the words "sexual assault" regarding Bush 41's alleged touching. That's a serious charge.

How can you be sexually assaulted with six or seven other people around, including his wife, and the group is being photographed at the time? The whole thing smacks of Hollywood Hyperbole.
Click to expand...
The pattern of these sorts of allegations indicates that in time it will likely come out that she is being paid by the Dems/Clintons/Obamas to say this to, wait for it....., distract the media and public from the big Uranium One Dem/HRC funded fake Dossier story.
 
Within a week or so...

The left embraces G.W. Bush with open arms and gushing gratitude.

Days later, his 93 year old, wheel chair bound father is painted as a sexually assaulting predator for touching arses during photo ops. :smh:
 
horninchicago said:
The pattern of these sorts of allegations indicates that in time it will likely come out that she is being paid by the Dems/Clintons/Obamas to say this to, wait for it....., distract the media and public from the big Uranium One Dem/HRC funded fake Dossier story.
Click to expand...

President Bush apologized for the incident. It's probably true. However, what needs to be considered is a sense of proportionality. A 90+ year old man touching a chick's *** isn't comparable to Harvey Weinstein raping girls and using his position of power to exploit others.

That doesn't justify or mitigate what Bush did. You shouldn't intentionally touch another person in a sexual manner without that person's expressed or implied consent. However, not all touchings are the same, and we shouldn't use catch-all terms like "sexual assault" to lump then together. Jaywalking and murder are both crimes, but there's a reason why one can get you a death sentence and the other cannot.
 
Movie director/ film producers taking advantage of starlets is as old as Hollywood and it's not like I'm privy to any inside or unpublished information here. Powerful people exploiting less powerful for sexual favors happened/happens in business, municipal government and even school districts.

Hell, it was central to the plot of Les Miserables.

There is less that the lecherous and those who assert power through sexual exploitation can get away with. Perps and pervs are being punished for crap they thought they got away with.. Stuff that used to be "nod, nod", "wink wink" is less acceptable. Am I the only one that thinks this is a good thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top