Re: The Racist, Sexist, Bigoted Admitted Sexual Predator Trump is Tweeting Again..

by Guest 2016-11-29, 12:15

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Trying to deflect from the Flag opinion? No surprise.
so do you support your man Trump's assault on the First Amendment?

(a "yes" or "no" will work fine)..

Nope, but again you're assigning way too much power to him. You need to get your panties out of a bunch. You act as if he's now or going to be a dictator which is silly.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-11-29, 12:16

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:so do you support your man Trump's assault on the First Amendment?

(a "yes" or "no" will work fine)..

Nope

great.

I'm sorry that he's disappointed you less than a month after being elected.

by **Blanch32** 2016-11-29, 12:17

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

We've had 8 years of it you should be used to it. You remember "bitter clingers" don't you? Or "I won"?

If you're trying to equate Obama to Trump you aren't going to win this argument. Well maybe with Dude and LWS. If you want to be lumped in with those guys that's your prerogative I suppose.

i will..

trump = fox news

obama = cnn

now go prove me wrong

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 12:18

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Analysis = being OK with the first amendment challenged by the president elect.

Spin away, goose, spin away. Whatever helps you sleep at night. You're so fair and balanced...

Hey OTPT? Go take a look at the last Flag burning decision by the Supreme Court.

Then come back and tell me who preserved your 1st amendment rights and who was willing to throw them out.

OK? Or do you need me to do it for you?

It looks like the Supreme court defended the first amendment.

What does this have to do with you being cool with the first amendment being intruded on because it's Trump?

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2016-11-29, 13:04

Blanch32 wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

If you're trying to equate Obama to Trump you aren't going to win this argument. Well maybe with Dude and LWS. If you want to be lumped in with those guys that's your prerogative I suppose.

i will..

trump = fox news

obama = cnn

now go prove me wrong

Well, you are really really dumb so there's no sense in arguing with your Foxbot logic. At least Goose has some independent thought.

by Guest 2016-11-29, 13:25

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Nope
great.

I'm sorry that he's disappointed you less than a month after being elected.

Another Bobbyian leap.

If you want to get skeptics to take a second look at populist nationalism, ranting about flag-burning is a good place to start. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who was happy to support criminal penalties for flag-burning in 2005 when she was eyeing her first presidential run and thinking Bill’s blue-collar centrist Democratic coalition would deliver for her in 2008.

Seems like politicians being politicians to me.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-11-29, 13:33

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote: great.

I'm sorry that he's disappointed you less than a month after being elected.

Another Bobbyian leap.

If you want to get skeptics to take a second look at populist nationalism, ranting about flag-burning is a good place to start. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who was happy to support criminal penalties for flag-burning in 2005 when she was eyeing her first presidential run and thinking Bill’s blue-collar centrist Democratic coalition would deliver for her in 2008.

Seems like politicians being politicians to me.

yeah - but, as you stated, Democrats aren't big fans of the Constitution to begin with.. Hillary, the negro muslim, etc... so that's not surprising.

That's why so many fine folks like you - rural, patriotic, freedom-lovin', god-fearin' folks.. support Trump, right?

by **Blanch32** 2016-11-29, 13:56

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
Blanch32 wrote:

i will..

trump = fox news

obama = cnn

now go prove me wrong

Well, you are really really dumb so there's no sense in arguing with your Foxbot logic. At least Goose has some independent thought.

goose
independent. lol your suck a tool, nigel

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2016-11-29, 13:59

Blanch32 wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Well, you are really really dumb so there's no sense in arguing with your Foxbot logic. At least Goose has some independent thought.

goose
independent. lol your suck a tool, nigel

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 14:03

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Hey OTPT? Go take a look at the last Flag burning decision by the Supreme Court.

Then come back and tell me who preserved your 1st amendment rights and who was willing to throw them out.

OK? Or do you need me to do it for you?

It looks like the Supreme court defended the first amendment.

What does this have to do with you being cool with the first amendment being intruded on because it's Trump?

Goose?

by **The_Dude** 2016-11-29, 14:32

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Hey OTPT? Go take a look at the last Flag burning decision by the Supreme Court.

Then come back and tell me who preserved your 1st amendment rights and who was willing to throw them out.

OK? Or do you need me to do it for you?

It looks like the Supreme court defended the first amendment.

What does this have to do with you being cool with the first amendment being intruded on because it's Trump?

Um, its the left, not the right, that has been assaulting free speech for years now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/287426-obamas-legacy-the-trashing-of-free-speech

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-hypocritical-journalism-lecture-213775

Obama has been one of the most un-transparent and anti free speech POTUSs America has ever had.

Thats a fact. Everything the left is saying about Trump is fear mongering, butthurt, cry baby speculation.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 14:35

The_Dude wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

It looks like the Supreme court defended the first amendment.

What does this have to do with you being cool with the first amendment being intruded on because it's Trump?

Um, its the left, not the right, that has been assaulting free speech for years now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/287426-obamas-legacy-the-trashing-of-free-speech

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-hypocritical-journalism-lecture-213775

Obama has been one of the most un-transparent and anti free speech POTUSs America has ever had.

Thats a fact. Everything the left is saying about Trump is fear mongering, butthurt, cry baby speculation.

I'm not really interested in the left vs right sheep game...so I'll skip the stuff about Obama.

"Everything the left is saying about Trump is fear mongering, butthurt, cry baby speculation." says Mr. Lebowski.

Then Trump says this:

Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

by **The_Dude** 2016-11-29, 14:38

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

Um, its the left, not the right, that has been assaulting free speech for years now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/287426-obamas-legacy-the-trashing-of-free-speech

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/obama-hypocritical-journalism-lecture-213775

Obama has been one of the most un-transparent and anti free speech POTUSs America has ever had.

Thats a fact. Everything the left is saying about Trump is fear mongering, butthurt, cry baby speculation.

I'm not really interested in the left vs right sheep game...so I'll skip the stuff about Obama.

"Everything the left is saying about Trump is fear mongering, butthurt, cry baby speculation." says Mr. Lebowski.

Then Trump says this:
Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

Right, just ignore Obamas and the left atrocious track record on free speech, but vilify a guy who has never stomped on those rights. Ok

It amazes me people still take everything Trump says literally. Almost non of his voters took what he said literally. No one thought all Moslems would be banned or a wall would go up around the entire border. They were symbolic gestures and headline grabbers to force the issue to the forefront. And it worked.

But for me, I will wait until Trump ACTUALLY infringes upon those rights before I accuse him of doing so. Obama HAS done that, so thats why we can say for certain hes anti free speech. Trump HASNT done that yet.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-11-29, 14:50

Bobby Sak wrote:looking forward to the pro-constitution freedom-lovin' patriots here at tSwill speak out against this...

yep... looking forward to it..

anytime now.

still waiting.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 14:52

The_Dude wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

I'm not really interested in the left vs right sheep game...so I'll skip the stuff about Obama.

"Everything the left is saying about Trump is fear mongering, butthurt, cry baby speculation." says Mr. Lebowski.

Then Trump says this:

"But for me, I will wait until Trump ACTUALLY infringes upon those rights before I accuse him of doing so. Obama HAS done that, so thats why we can say for certain hes anti free speech. Trump HASNT done that yet."

OTPT earlier in this thread: "Until he ACTUALLY starts punishing people for doing this, I don't see the big deal. Let's just wait and see how it plays out, eh? More media propaganda. "

Is there anyone that isn't a fucking sheep that has bought into this game? Seriously? One poster? Bueller? Fucking Trump SAYS he wants to infringe on the 1st and that is not enough for supporters to be like woah.. that's wrong.. How can people be like this? I do not understand./

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2016-11-29, 14:56

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

"But for me, I will wait until Trump ACTUALLY infringes upon those rights before I accuse him of doing so. Obama HAS done that, so thats why we can say for certain hes anti free speech. Trump HASNT done that yet."

OTPT earlier in this thread: "Until he ACTUALLY starts punishing people for doing this, I don't see the big deal. Let's just wait and see how it plays out, eh? More media propaganda. "

Is there anyone that isn't a fucking sheep that has bought into this game? Seriously? One poster? Bueller? Fucking Trump SAYS he wants to infringe on the 1st and that is not enough for supporters to be like woah.. that's wrong.. How can people be like this? I do not understand./

"Yeah, but Obama..." - Dude

He's like one of those dolls with a pullstring that can only give 4 or 5 basic responses.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-11-29, 14:58

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

OTPT earlier in this thread: "Until he ACTUALLY starts punishing people for doing this, I don't see the big deal. Let's just wait and see how it plays out, eh? More media propaganda. "

Is there anyone that isn't a fucking sheep that has bought into this game? Seriously? One poster? Bueller? Fucking Trump SAYS he wants to infringe on the 1st and that is not enough for supporters to be like woah.. that's wrong.. How can people be like this? I do not understand./

"Yeah, but Obama..." - Dude

He's like one of those dolls with a pullstring that can only give 4 or 5 basic responses.

on the upside, as Trump - the racist, bigoted, misogynistic, admitted sexual predator - destroys the country, it'll be fun pointing it out to his supporters here.

by **Blanch32** 2016-11-29, 15:01

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
Blanch32 wrote:

goose
independent. lol your suck a tool, nigel

qft nigel?

by **Blanch32** 2016-11-29, 15:03

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Bobby Sak wrote:looking forward to the pro-constitution freedom-lovin' patriots here at tSwill speak out against this...

yep... looking forward to it..

anytime now.

still waiting.

for your links? yes, you'd be correct

by Guest 2016-11-29, 15:10

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Is there anyone that isn't a fucking sheep that has bought into this game? Seriously? One poster? Bueller? Fucking Trump SAYS he wants to infringe on the 1st and that is not enough for supporters to be like woah.. that's wrong.. How can people be like this? I do not understand./

Hell the whole country has stood by like sheep while our 4th amendment rights have been shot to hell over the last 15 years so what's new?

by **Turtleneck** 2016-11-29, 15:17

Maybe this was mentioned, but that tweet takes a shot at both the 1st and 14th Amendments. The 14th Amendments ensures citizenship rights to those "born or naturalized in the United States." At least Trump is not afraid to tell us how he really feels about that pesky Constitution. In other news, one of his advisers needs to login to his Twitter account and change the password.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2016-11-29, 15:21

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Is there anyone that isn't a fucking sheep that has bought into this game? Seriously? One poster? Bueller? Fucking Trump SAYS he wants to infringe on the 1st and that is not enough for supporters to be like woah.. that's wrong.. How can people be like this? I do not understand./

Hell the whole country has stood by like sheep while our 4th amendment rights have been shot to hell over the last 15 years so what's new?

Civil forfeiture has been around a lot longer than 15 years.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 15:25

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Is there anyone that isn't a fucking sheep that has bought into this game? Seriously? One poster? Bueller? Fucking Trump SAYS he wants to infringe on the 1st and that is not enough for supporters to be like woah.. that's wrong.. How can people be like this? I do not understand./

Hell the whole country has stood by like sheep while our 4th amendment rights have been shot to hell over the last 15 years so what's new?

As long as it's my team doing it, it's fine ! Rolling Eyes

#America

by Guest 2016-11-29, 16:02

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Hell the whole country has stood by like sheep while our 4th amendment rights have been shot to hell over the last 15 years so what's new?

Civil forfeiture has been around a lot longer than 15 years.

I was referring to the Patriot Act but CF is just as bad.

by Guest 2016-11-29, 16:03

Aaron Blake ‏@AaronBlake 20m20 minutes ago
Trump's basic position on flag-burning isn't really that controversial. In 2006, 73% said it should be illegal.

by Guest 2016-11-29, 16:04

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Hell the whole country has stood by like sheep while our 4th amendment rights have been shot to hell over the last 15 years so what's new?

As long as it's my team doing it, it's fine ! #America

Wrong boyo....I was strongly opposed when the "patriot" act was passed during the Bush administration.

I was opposed when it was renewed and expanded under Obama.

Both "sides" suck on that one.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-11-29, 16:12

even though Trump - the sexist, racist, bigoted, admitted sexual predator - wants to do away with the First Amendment.. this thread finally made Goose come out as a Trump supporter..

so that's a good thing.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 16:14

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

As long as it's my team doing it, it's fine ! #America

Wrong boyo....I was strongly opposed when the "patriot" act was passed during the Bush administration.

I was opposed when it was renewed and expanded under Obama.

Both "sides" suck on that one.

So you're still thinking about the first amendment that this thread started about? You kinda dodged me there for a few posts.

by Guest 2016-11-29, 16:17

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Wrong boyo....I was strongly opposed when the "patriot" act was passed during the Bush administration.

I was opposed when it was renewed and expanded under Obama.

Both "sides" suck on that one.

So you're still thinking about the first amendment that this thread started about? You kinda dodged me there for a few posts.

Have you seen me support any limitation of the 1st amendment? Please post that. You jump to many wrong conclusions by swallowing Bob's shit sandwiches whole.

Oh....I wonder what's changed to inspire Kaine?

Senator Tim KaineVerified account ‏@timkaine
Sign your name if you think no president, including Trump, should be able to go to war without a vote in Congress

by Guest 2016-11-29, 16:18

Robert J Sakimano wrote:even though Trump - the sexist, racist, bigoted, admitted sexual predator - wants to do away with the First Amendment.. this thread finally made Goose come out as a Trump supporter..

so that's a good thing.

And your "proof" of that is? You're amusing when you make things up.....but then again it's what you do.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 16:23

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

So you're still thinking about the first amendment that this thread started about? You kinda dodged me there for a few posts.

Have you seen me support any limitation of the 1st amendment? Please post that. You jump to many wrong conclusions by swallowing Bob's shit sandwiches whole.

Oh....I wonder what's changed to inspire Kaine?

Senator Tim KaineVerified account ‏@timkaine
Sign your name if you think no president, including Trump, should be able to go to war without a vote in Congress

So you do disagree with trumps tweet? You went into a tirade about trump being a master manipulator - never really addressing the thread. Talked about liberals a bit though.

Why do you have to be so vague nigel? This was not a difficult thread until ya know you went off on your tangets.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2016-11-29, 16:28

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Have you seen me support any limitation of the 1st amendment? Please post that. You jump to many wrong conclusions by swallowing Bob's shit sandwiches whole.

Oh....I wonder what's changed to inspire Kaine?

Senator Tim KaineVerified account ‏@timkaine
Sign your name if you think no president, including Trump, should be able to go to war without a vote in Congress

So you do disagree with trumps tweet? You went into a tirade about trump being a master manipulator - never really addressing the thread. Talked about liberals a bit though.

Why do you have to be so vague nigel? This was not a difficult thread until ya know you went off on your tangets.

I'm pretty sure Blanch is the one true Nigel clone here. He can't let anything go ever. Different sides of the same obsessed coin.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-11-29, 17:31

LooseGoose wrote:Aaron Blake ‏@AaronBlake 20m20 minutes ago
Trump's basic position on flag-burning isn't really that controversial. In 2006, 73% said it should be illegal.

1. What is controversial is that a president-elect suggested people lose citizenship (14th Amendment) for engaging in a form of expression the Supreme Court deemed as constitutionally protected in 1989 (1st Amendment).

2. We have a system of government intentionally designed to insulate government from the will of majority, so that number is kind of meaningless relative to my first point.

3. If Trump seriously believes what he tweeted, as I said before - and you fiercely disagreed with me about this - we should prepare for an intense standoff between the legislative and executive branches. That is a good thing if it results in a "constitutional reset" and a reined in executive. It is a bad thing if the executive somehow prevails.

4. Just as he did time and time again in the primaries, this all might be for attention and deflecting from other issues. There are quite a few concerns with some of his cabinet choices and business (conflict of) interests. This tweet - by making a statement that stands in such stark contrast to the Constitution - will surely take attention away those other issues. As usual, the press will fall for it.

by **The_Dude** 2016-11-29, 18:56

Crying over Trump is a bad look. Unless he picked Democrats, you butt hurt Dems would do what you do best--act as cry babies.

My advice is to get over it and move in. But in reality, I want to to act like cry babies the next 4 years. Trump might win his re election by even a bigger landslide.

by Guest 2016-11-29, 19:52

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
So you do disagree with trumps tweet? You went into a tirade about trump being a master manipulator - never really addressing the thread. Talked about liberals a bit though.

Why do you have to be so vague nigel? This was not a difficult thread until ya know you went off on your tangets.

Not a "tirade" at all. A fascination that he can manipulate the entire press and their parrots like Bob into an all day frenzy over the flag burning with one tweet. Somehow you've made that out to be a full scale statement of support for Trump and imprisoning flag burners. Can I do the same with you? If you comment on something does that give me the right to make shit up out of whole cloth about you?

I've not been vague at all, I think anyone can burn a flag any time they want. I pointed out that Justice Scalia twice voted for the right to burn flags. Somehow I guess you think my admiration of Scalia's jurisprudence ended before his flag votes. I would say I'll also support any American's right to kick the shit out of any young snot burning our flag. And just FYI that would fall under jury nullification not Trump support.

by Guest 2016-11-29, 19:56

Turtleneck wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:Aaron Blake ‏@AaronBlake 20m20 minutes ago
Trump's basic position on flag-burning isn't really that controversial. In 2006, 73% said it should be illegal.

1. What is controversial is that a president-elect suggested people lose citizenship (14th Amendment) for engaging in a form of expression the Supreme Court deemed as constitutionally protected in 1989 (1st Amendment).

2. We have a system of government intentionally designed to insulate government from the will of majority, so that number is kind of meaningless relative to my first point.

3. If Trump seriously believes what he tweeted, as I said before - and you fiercely disagreed with me about this - we should prepare for an intense standoff between the legislative and executive branches. That is a good thing if it results in a "constitutional reset" and a reined in executive. It is a bad thing if the executive somehow prevails.

4. Just as he did time and time again in the primaries, this all might be for attention and deflecting from other issues. There are quite a few concerns with some of his cabinet choices and business (conflict of) interests. This tweet - by making a statement that stands in such stark contrast to the Constitution - will surely take attention away those other issues. As usual, the press will fall for it.

Presidents-Elect say shit all the time, just as candidates do. What they actually get done is a whole 'nother story. It would be better if people ignored the stupid shit but it's like crack to the weak minded. The lazy press falls for it and they can count on their parrots to run to message boards all over the internet to start stupid threads over something that's never gonna happen.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-11-29, 20:01

I don't think they have the right to kick someone's ass, goose. That may be assault.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-11-29, 20:07

LooseGoose wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

1. What is controversial is that a president-elect suggested people lose citizenship (14th Amendment) for engaging in a form of expression the Supreme Court deemed as constitutionally protected in 1989 (1st Amendment).

2. We have a system of government intentionally designed to insulate government from the will of majority, so that number is kind of meaningless relative to my first point.

3. If Trump seriously believes what he tweeted, as I said before - and you fiercely disagreed with me about this - we should prepare for an intense standoff between the legislative and executive branches. That is a good thing if it results in a "constitutional reset" and a reined in executive. It is a bad thing if the executive somehow prevails.

4. Just as he did time and time again in the primaries, this all might be for attention and deflecting from other issues. There are quite a few concerns with some of his cabinet choices and business (conflict of) interests. This tweet - by making a statement that stands in such stark contrast to the Constitution - will surely take attention away those other issues. As usual, the press will fall for it.

Presidents-Elect say shit all the time, just as candidates do. What they actually get done is a whole 'nother story. It would be better if people ignored the stupid shit but it's like crack to the weak minded. The lazy press falls for it and they can count on their parrots to run to message boards all over the internet to start stupid threads over something that's never gonna happen.

How many times did you say "never gonna happen" in regards to Trump winning the Republican nomination and general election?

by Guest 2016-11-29, 20:09

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:I don't think they have the right to kick someone's ass, goose. That may be assault.

Might be. Thus my mention of jury nullification.

by Guest 2016-11-29, 20:10

Turtleneck wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Presidents-Elect say shit all the time, just as candidates do. What they actually get done is a whole 'nother story. It would be better if people ignored the stupid shit but it's like crack to the weak minded. The lazy press falls for it and they can count on their parrots to run to message boards all over the internet to start stupid threads over something that's never gonna happen.

How many times did you say "never gonna happen" in regards to Trump winning the Republican nomination and general election?

IF you ask Bobby and OTPT - never.