Audie
Veteran Member
Put chalk in a pencil shsrpener, hold at about a 30
degree angle, swift upstroke on chalkboard. Like fingernails
20 times louder.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Leftists suggest re-education camps, firing squads, banning talk radio to deprogram Trump supporters
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
degree angle, swift upstroke on chalkboard. Like fingernails
20 times louder.
Goddess Kit
Active Member
Yes, I have observed the same thing, which was why I mentioned it.
Like the voice of some posters, eh.
Goddess Kit
Active Member
If someone is annoyed by your reason, you're doing something right.
Difficult to say. He may have been a commie once, but then was supposedly disenchanted by communism after having lived in the Soviet Union for a few months. So he came back to the U.S. Even the Soviets thought he was a loon. They didn't really seem to want him. He was a troubled kid who got a bad start in life.
A lot of people thought that JFK was a communist, that he was too soft on Cuba and Vietnam. Right-wingers were also against him for his civil rights stance. Others have pointed to his seamy private life and his alleged connections to the Mob, while his brother as AG was going after various Mob figures. J. Edgar Hoover also didn't like working under Bobby Kennedy.
Well, there's a bit of background behind that. But yes, the Democrats can be blamed for Vietnam. I think LBJ often gets the lion's share of the blame, as opposed to Kennedy, largely because most of the escalation of US involvement took place under Johnson. Johnson was President when the Gulf of Tonkin incident took place.
On the other hand, the Republicans nominated Goldwater in 1964, although Goldwater was viewed as too extreme right-wing to suit most voters, who overwhelmingly supported LBJ.
But all in all, both parties have a checkered past. America overall has a checkered past. The Democrats have their war-mongers, although they've also had some peaceniks as well. The Republicans have used that as one of their main criticisms of the Democrats, that they're weak, cowardly, and naively unaware of all the evils and dangers lurking around the world which require direct US military involvement. A significant low point for the Democrats was when Michael Dukakis tried to counter that criticism by visiting a US Army base and driving a tank.
*Clicks ignore*. I'm not in the mood.
Audie
Veteran Member
I saw the photo of Dukakis, so ridiculous looking.
Have not all president assassins and wannabees been acting alone ?
Not all of them. John Wilkes Booth conspired with several others who were ultimately hanged for their role in the assassination. With others, it's hard to say. There were some where people may not have been part of the assassination, but still wanted the President dead just the same.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Lots of us dont get to vote for candidates who do reflect what we actually would support.
Just out of curiosity, how white is your real world?
Audie
Veteran Member
Like zero
Audie
Veteran Member
Not cool.
Why do you think that's important?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Unfortunately it is the real world that sustains these people.
It is their lack of engagement that lets these situations fester and erupt.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
More to the point why do you think it might not be so?
Colour issues and prejudice are ingrained very deeply and widely into American culture.
Because I know where I live, where I come from, what I've experienced in life, and my general observations about life in these United States. If someone tries to insinuate that I'm "too white" (and whatever else that might imply), then I think it's valid to question that and where they're coming from.
It wasn't a question about American culture; it was a question about me personally.
But if you want to be personal, then please tell me: How "white" is your world? If you think that it's an important and relevant question, then by all means, let's hear it.
As for me, I think I have a pretty firm grasp on American history and the many things which are very deeply and widely ingrained into American culture, along with its various sub-cultures and regional cultures. To answer the question "how white is my world," then I would say about half.
Life is so much more than race....
Poverty vs wealth
Urban vs rural
High crime vs safe area
Good vs bad fortune
Ambition vs sloth
Mental health vs dysfunction
Smart vs dumb
Also, many people use things like race, religion,
& gender as an ad hominem attack....dismissal
of another person's perspective.
The voters have cast their ballots, and some people are patient enough to wait for the official certifications from each state, as well as the vote by the Electoral College. Most people knew that there would be attempts to fight it out in court, which is what's been happening. The process will take its course.
There might be certain situations "festering" out there, many of which are socioeconomic in nature.
No, you really don't. You ignore everything on the right in these threads you like to post.
Do you seriously think you wouldn't find similar - and worse - rhetoric coming from the right?
Heck - there are right-wing terrorists in jail right now over their plot against the Michigan state government.
Aww... the same people who spent the last four years sayIng things like "**** your feelings, snowflake" to their political opponents now want people to stop hurting their feelings. Let me take a moment to get over the hypocrisy.
Here's the thing: there are really only two ways that someone can support Trump:
- unknowingly, without realizing the harm he's inflicting on the country and the world.
- knowing full well what he's doing and supporting that wilfully.
The first option is the more charitable assumption, but if assuming it is creating too many hurt feelings, we could go with the second one.
... just know, though: the second option reflects much worse on Trump supporters.
I don't think I've ignored anything here. I may not have the time or the inclination to respond to every post, but I'm not ignoring anything.
If there's anything in particular you want me to address, then please ask me.
Of course. I've seen it. I've posted and commented about it.
Yes, I was aware of that.
Aww... the same people who spent the last four years sayIng things like "**** your feelings, snowflake" to their political opponents now want people to stop hurting their feelings. Let me take a moment to get over the hypocrisy.
I was referring to something else, but go ahead, take a moment.
Here's another thing you might consider: Just because you think you have it all figured out, that may not necessarily be true. You think you can tell me what's what, and that I'm just supposed to take your word for it? Is that how you think it is?