Trump: Transgender people 'can't serve' in US military

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
If you're willing to accept 'poor presentation skills' after 30 years of practice I'd say you are definitely going for the easy out.

I think her style was wooden because it was so tightly scripted to avoid saying anything controversial that she ended up saying nothing at all.
Click to expand...
No matter what lessons I take, I'll always look like a fool on the dance floor. So, sometimes it doesn't matter. She does well when completely practiced and prepared but she was always wooden and off when in a situation that demanded spontaneity. Your explanation is much better than the one thought guide guy came up with. I'd say it's more likely than mine. There is nothing sinister about Clinton getting tight and wooden when all she's trying to do is not fuck up. That seems perfectly natural to me. Is it what I want for a prez? Compared to Trump you goddam betcha I'd take that in a heartbeat.

But this misses my main point. Thought guide guy took you guys to a sinister contorted and unlikely reason among many simpler possibilities. Jon Stewart had nothing to do with that. He was the flasher on the line and when you took it, he reeled you in. It was a prime example of propaganda. He's manipulating you Sandernistas. Why and who pays him I don't know. But that was a professional con job.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
No matter what lessons I take, I'll always look like a fool on the dance floor. So, sometimes it doesn't matter. She does well when completely practiced and prepared but she was always wooden and off when in a situation that demanded spontaneity. Your explanation is much better than the one thought guide guy came up with. I'd say it's more likely than mine. There is nothing sinister about Clinton getting tight and wooden when all she's trying to do is not fuck up. That seems perfectly natural to me. Is it what I want for a prez? Compared to Trump you goddam betcha I'd take that in a heartbeat.

But this misses my main point. Thought guide guy took you guys to a sinister contorted and unlikely reason among many simpler possibilities. Jon Stewart had nothing to do with that. He was the flasher on the line and when you took it, he reeled you in. It was a prime example of propaganda. He's manipulating you Sandernistas. Why and who pays him I don't know. But that was a professional con job.
Click to expand...
I would have preferred her to the Cheeto Fuhrer as well. I'm not subscribing to the extreme view of the thought guide.

But I still don't think she has anyone but the rich and powerful in mind as important constituents, and that's still an existential threat to our country.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Heil Tweetler said:
bro your logic fell out of your ass
Click to expand...

War is organized murder. Calling it legit fails the logic test.

A person minding their own business in X that is handed a gun and told to go kill a person they don't even know, has been indoctrinated into the idea that words can change their meaning based on who utters the words.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I would have preferred her to the Cheeto Fuhrer as well. I'm not subscribing to the extreme view of the thought guide.

But I still don't think she has anyone but the rich and powerful in mind as important constituents, and that's still an existential threat to our country.
Click to expand...
That bit of propaganda is what I'm talking about. Hillary is not important. That @st0wandgrow quoted thought guide guy but said Stewart was the source is telling. I don't think he changed st0's and your minds, he just sealed it. You guys are being manipulated.

As you say, "you don't think she has anyone but the rich in mind". Yet we see in your preferred piece of "proof" of Clinton's deep depravity that it is all made up by a propagandist. Your viewpoint is contaminated. How did your views on Clinton become so fixed negative on her? Why do you quote what you think without verifiable information. What proof is there to show she has nobody but the rich in mind? She has done plenty of good for the lower classes. Yet you fixate on an unprovable belief. Where did that belief come from?
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
That bit of propaganda is what I'm talking about. Hillary is not important. That @st0wandgrow quoted thought guide guy but said Stewart was the source is telling. I don't think he changed st0's and your minds, he just sealed it. You guys are being manipulated.

As you say, "you don't think she has anyone but the rich in mind". Yet we see in your preferred piece of "proof" of Clinton's deep depravity that it is all made up by a propagandist. Your viewpoint is contaminated. How did your views on Clinton become so fixed negative on her? Why do you quote what you think without verifiable information. What proof is there to show she has nobody but the rich in mind? She has done plenty of good for the lower classes. Yet you fixate on an unprovable belief. Where did that belief come from?
Click to expand...
Yep, that 1996 omnibus crime bill was a real selfless piece of work.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
In Jon Stewart's one minute of accurate and spot on criticism, he points out Clinton's weakness in presentation without getting into psycho-analysis.
Click to expand...
He said that she "lacks the courage of her convictions". She's an empty suit. "Maybe a real person doesn't exist underneath there". She says what she believes people want to hear. To which you replied...

Fogdog said:
One minute or less of Jon Stewart's spot on and accurate criticism of Clinton.....I agree with Jon Stewart about his criticism of Clinton.
Click to expand...
Fogdog said:
What you quoted and demonstrate by posting that piece of crap is you want to accept thought guide guy's long winded narrative after Jon's 1-minute clip.
Click to expand...
I made no mention of the rest of the video. I only asked you about your glowing approval of Jon Stewarts critique of Clinton. You are trying to deflect, and change the subject by bringing up "thought guide guy". Thinly veiled.

I brought this clip up, and your 100% agreeance of Jon Stewarts assesment of Hillary after you disagreed with my assesment of her and her stance on gay marriage...which is that she changed positions simply as a political calculation. She lacks the courage of her convictions. You agreed with this assesment of her on Sunday, and then 2 days later you're yammering on about how could I possibly know this. You are contradicting yourself in the span of 2 days.
 
Last edited:
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
https://theweek.com/articles/714733/what-happened-what-happened-blew-hillary
Click to expand...
That article is spot on.


"Hillary Clinton has written a memoir about the 2016 presidential campaign and election. I suppose that was inevitable.

But did it really need to be called What Happened?

That title really is unfortunate. Because the thing is that "what happened" is patently obvious to everyone who isn't blinded by partisanship or personal fealty to the Clinton family: She lost — to the most flagrant demagogue-charlatan in American history, a man whose lack of fitness for the job was so obvious and total that she should have won in a landslide."


That bold text above remind you of anyone?? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top