Trump's first 100 days

1,059,622 Views | 16862 Replies | Last: 33 min ago by Jack Bauer
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

william said:

FLBear5630 said:

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...



Some of which only went with the flow and walked thru the buildings. Others, many believe had criminal intent. Some believe that poor whatshisname was involved. Perhaps it was all a bad dream, or was it recording on live TV, with members of his own party calling for the 25th amendment on the floor of Congress in the days which followed. Thank goodness whathisname was elected president so we don't have to face what was obviously a lie on live TV. At least he learned his lesson and has become a model for who many want as our future "leader". Too bad the mainstream media polls are full of lies.

lectern guy seems like a good dude......

- UF

#LecternGuy2028

edit:

looks like he did run for office.........

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/11/adam-johnson-nancy-pelosi-lectern-podium-guy-dc-capitol-riot/88133170007/
pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is how normal people act without politics leading all their decisions (and they were playing Boston).

Love your neighbor

cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

That is what the discussion was about Hate Speech. You turned it to violent, probably because it suited your definition.

Hate Speech - abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds

That is what we were saying.

I said both sides need to stop and focus on fixing our problems.

Apparently that is a leftist thing to say. Because all I have heard, from you and others, is it is all the Left. Trump si a loving soul that never says anything violent. Wonk, Wonk, Wonk...

So, you are good with Trump doing Hate Speech. You seem to be defending it pretty strongly.


No sorry the discussion is about violence. IF you go back a few pages in the thread to when the first post appeared Saturday night about the assassination attempt one of the first things said was the left has nothing but violence (Danieljackson posted).

The next post about left vs right was a tweet about the left thinking violence was ok.

Then multiple posts later you respond to a post about the lies of the media with it being a "rhetoric war."

Then a post about Kimmel's hateful, violent speech.

Then one by Historian about hate speech laws and how it comes from the left.

So no the conversation was about violent speech. Then came the hateful posts.

But you are AGAIN wrong the topic was FIRST violent speech.

And again you are taking what I say, ignoring the parts that prove you wrong and falsely claiming things about what I am saying. I have not said he is a loving soul. Those are your words.

I never said I was good with Trump doing hate speech. That was you.

I have not defended hateful speech. I have simply pointed out none of it was violent, you know the ORIGINAL comment. I have pointed out how his speech was mean and not good to do, especially for a president, but it is not hateful or violent.

So keep ignoring the facts all you want but you are wrong.

By the way I am still waiting on you to provide examples of the right doing the violent speech to show how it is both sides (as you keep claiming).
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

cowboycwr said:

BUDOS said:

cowboycwr said:

FLBear5630 said:

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count? No not violent or hateful
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty. His exact words were that in different times the punishment would have been death. He did not say he deserves it.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face." Already pointed out the FULL quote was she should be on the front line with 9 barrels facing her. Not violent.
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Not violent or hateful
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees." The FULL quote was that if you someone about to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Not violent but preventing violence
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings. This has only been claimed by one person but no one has ever backed this person up to say it was said.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats. Not violent
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin." Not violent
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy." The FULL quote was "Any guy that can do a body slam is my kinda guy." Not Violent
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes. Not violent
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people." Not violent
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum." Not violent
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible." Not violent
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals." Not violent
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice. Not violent
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton. He was talking about second amendment supporters stopping her from getting elected, appointing judges that side with her to do away with the second amendment. It was made in the MIDDLE of an interview about her desire to abolish the second amendment.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected. Not violent
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms. Not violent

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

Again, you are giving only partial comments and not the full factual comments that do NOT say what you or the leftist media claim.

So again you post a bunch of partial quotes, some of which are mean, are not nice things to say, but are not full quotes and are not violent.

So again post where he called someone a future widow or any of the other violent talk from the left.

OR anyone else on the right.

But stop cherry picking comments that have been disproven multiple times now

Do you believe that you could be guilty of cherry-picking?
Just asking you to think about both sides of this argument from a macro perspective.

How am I cherry picking? I provided the full quotes to refute his partial quotes.

The full quote calling the first lady a future widow is available all over the place. As a whole or part it is still wrong and violent.

He was referring to their age difference is what he claims, so it's also easy to refund your position.

Yeah sure. I am sure that is what he was referring to.....
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear with the ad hominem duck and run.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boognish Bear put up a message saying WH now using Hate Speech.

I said Pot meet Kettle. It needs to stop on both sides.


It went all over from there. I was speaking to the WH using Hate Speech.

Regardless, "Hate Speech", "Violent Speech", "Racist Speech" both sides need to stop. You guys want to quibble over who is more wrong, have at it.
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Oldbear83 said:

BUDOS said:

Oldbear83 said:

Hello again, BUDOS. Thanks for your post, which I now will address:


BUDOS: "Now, speaking of semantics, please explain to me how I am so damn intellectually dishonest if I did not know about the sources you present?"

The chief problem in many issues regarding Trump, is the polarization of opinion and expressed emotion. It's obvious that many people have strong hatred against the President, and this colors how they think and speak, including posts here. I certainly understand people have the right to their opinion, but in many posts here these people treat their assumptions as established fact.

That is the problem with much of the J6 events. Many who hate Trump assume without evidence that he deliberately encouraged violence and criminal behavior.

There is no proof that this happened, and definitely evidence exists that demonstrates the opposite. A key piece is the claim that Trump offered to send National Guard troops.

People who hate Trump often believe Pelosi's denial that the offer happened, and ignore anything else. Those more objective look at the people making statements, and consider whether the statement is biased on its face or could be objective.

That the Capitol police chief at that time says the offer was made and he forwarded the request is strong evidence, as this man neither worked for Trump personally nor had anything to gain by confirming the matter. Everyone claiming the offer was not made had an interest in denying the offer.

I am disappointed in you here, BUDOS, because I would expect you to do more than a cursory look at the claims, and to observe the apparent motives to avoid bias.


BUDOS: "Yes, as I was watching this all day on different live TV stations, heard Trump did ask his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" during his speech on January 6, 2021.

In researching your above comment, whether this was "often deleted" by mainstream media is a matter of significant debate, especially since some recent findings indicate specific editing by major broadcasters which add credibility to your claim."


Thank you. I want to be clear that I dislike Trump's style of debate on this day, and especially believe that he did not think through what might happen. But poor judgment does not rise to criminal conduct in this case, and frankly a lot of people exercised poor judgement regarding that day, including many who attack Trump and ignore everything else.


BUDOS: "I compare his "peacefully" remark as a secondary detail compared to his broader rhetoric"

There is that bias I was concerned about.

BUDOS: "Something which I took special notice is that while watching the riot at the Capitol on television, Trump ignored requests to call off the crowd for 187 minutes."

I have seen that claim before. Usually from people unaware that those who rioted started while Trump was still making his speech.

Timeline reveals Capitol Hill riot began 20 mins before end of Trump's speech | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com

Even CNN, whose version of events was painted in a tone meant to attack Trump, concedes this.

The January 6 insurrection: Minute-by-minute | CNN Politics

This timeline matters, because no one seriously believes that President Trump finished his speech then immediately started watching TV about a riot he knew nothing about. Especially because as President, Trump already had other scheduled meetings and tasks that day.

The reasonable perspective would be that Trump made his speech, took care of various matters, became aware of the riots and then asked people to go home.

The thing is, treating Trump as a reasonable person does not fit the image his enemies want to have used. It's why the J6 committee destroyed so much of the evidence they had - they only wanted the narrative known, not the facts.

I certainly understand that someone committed to hate will refuse to grant that President Trump was guilty only of anger and a belief that he was the victim of a stolen election (not going into that here - it's a different topic). But anyone claiming to be an objective judge should recognize that Trump's enemies were far from honest themselves, and many claims made against Trump amounted to nothing more than smear attempts which conveniently ignores their own shameful behavior.



Oldbear,
Sorry for delaying my response. It's a combination of unexpected personal events plus wanting to give more attention to the information you provided. I will get back to you. I will give a brief response to one of your points which I placed yours in italics:

That is the problem with much of the J6 events. Many who hate Trump assume without evidence that he deliberately encouraged violence and criminal behavior.



People who hate Trump often believe Pelosi's denial that the offer happened, and ignore anything else. Those more objective look at the people making statements, and consider whether the statement is biased on its face or could be objective.

That the Capitol police chief at that time says the offer was made and he forwarded the request is strong evidence, as this man neither worked for Trump personally nor had anything to gain by confirming the matter. Everyone claiming the offer was not made had an interest in denying the offer.


Mr. Oldbear,
Let me say this very simply that based on my follow-up research of your comments about the Capitol police, you were right and I was wrong.



Thanks BUDOS.

The funny thing (strange, not comedy) about this situation, is how both the Trump supporters and the anti-Trump people screwed up their arguments.

It should be obvious on its face, that Trump handled this situation badly. While I do think there were a lot of dirty tricks in the 2020 election, the difference between seeing something you count as dirty and being able to prove an illegal behavior happened is a very big chasm. Trump could have raised questions about issues while letting the process move forward, then let momentum carry the argument without the court drama. Trump's decision to press arguments he could not prove cost him a lot of credibility, which he only regained because Biden also went well over the line.

That said, Trump's words and actions were crass and showed poor judgment, but never rose to the level of actual illegal activity, or worthy of that cheap-trick impeachment by Democrats. Rather than send Trump home in shame, the Democrats revealed themselves to be just as petty if not even more.

By the time Joe Biden was inaugurated, many voters believed the two parties to be full of petulant, angry narcissists. Not much has happened since to improve that image for the average voter.

Oldbear,
I again apologize for the delay in responding. Similar to before I have a bit more going on than usual, plus wanting to research the information you took the time to present.
As I indicated earlier your report about the capitol police, you were right and I was wrong. However, related to the statement that Trump requested 10,000 troops, independent factchecks and Pentagon records find no evidence that Trump formally requested or authorized 10,000 National Guard troops for January 6, or that Pelosi "turned them down." Trump has repeatedly said he did this, but there is no written order, no formal request through the usual channels, and no record of Pelosi being asked to approve such a request.

There does exist testimony from Gen. Mark Milley and Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller indicates Trump made a general remark days before Jan. 6 along the lines of "make sure it's safe" and that they could use the Guard if needednot a specific, numeric, predeployment order for 10,000 troops at the Capitol. That's very different from a concrete, documented directive that was then blocked by Democrats, as indicated in one of the articles you sent me.

Oldbear,
Are we done with this topic?
I was hoping for more discussion on the topic, including opinion on the information I presented in response to yours and vice versa.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FAFO



Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

BUDOS said:

Oldbear83 said:

BUDOS said:

Oldbear83 said:

Hello again, BUDOS. Thanks for your post, which I now will address:


BUDOS: "Now, speaking of semantics, please explain to me how I am so damn intellectually dishonest if I did not know about the sources you present?"

The chief problem in many issues regarding Trump, is the polarization of opinion and expressed emotion. It's obvious that many people have strong hatred against the President, and this colors how they think and speak, including posts here. I certainly understand people have the right to their opinion, but in many posts here these people treat their assumptions as established fact.

That is the problem with much of the J6 events. Many who hate Trump assume without evidence that he deliberately encouraged violence and criminal behavior.

There is no proof that this happened, and definitely evidence exists that demonstrates the opposite. A key piece is the claim that Trump offered to send National Guard troops.

People who hate Trump often believe Pelosi's denial that the offer happened, and ignore anything else. Those more objective look at the people making statements, and consider whether the statement is biased on its face or could be objective.

That the Capitol police chief at that time says the offer was made and he forwarded the request is strong evidence, as this man neither worked for Trump personally nor had anything to gain by confirming the matter. Everyone claiming the offer was not made had an interest in denying the offer.

I am disappointed in you here, BUDOS, because I would expect you to do more than a cursory look at the claims, and to observe the apparent motives to avoid bias.


BUDOS: "Yes, as I was watching this all day on different live TV stations, heard Trump did ask his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" during his speech on January 6, 2021.

In researching your above comment, whether this was "often deleted" by mainstream media is a matter of significant debate, especially since some recent findings indicate specific editing by major broadcasters which add credibility to your claim."


Thank you. I want to be clear that I dislike Trump's style of debate on this day, and especially believe that he did not think through what might happen. But poor judgment does not rise to criminal conduct in this case, and frankly a lot of people exercised poor judgement regarding that day, including many who attack Trump and ignore everything else.


BUDOS: "I compare his "peacefully" remark as a secondary detail compared to his broader rhetoric"

There is that bias I was concerned about.

BUDOS: "Something which I took special notice is that while watching the riot at the Capitol on television, Trump ignored requests to call off the crowd for 187 minutes."

I have seen that claim before. Usually from people unaware that those who rioted started while Trump was still making his speech.

Timeline reveals Capitol Hill riot began 20 mins before end of Trump's speech | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com

Even CNN, whose version of events was painted in a tone meant to attack Trump, concedes this.

The January 6 insurrection: Minute-by-minute | CNN Politics

This timeline matters, because no one seriously believes that President Trump finished his speech then immediately started watching TV about a riot he knew nothing about. Especially because as President, Trump already had other scheduled meetings and tasks that day.

The reasonable perspective would be that Trump made his speech, took care of various matters, became aware of the riots and then asked people to go home.

The thing is, treating Trump as a reasonable person does not fit the image his enemies want to have used. It's why the J6 committee destroyed so much of the evidence they had - they only wanted the narrative known, not the facts.

I certainly understand that someone committed to hate will refuse to grant that President Trump was guilty only of anger and a belief that he was the victim of a stolen election (not going into that here - it's a different topic). But anyone claiming to be an objective judge should recognize that Trump's enemies were far from honest themselves, and many claims made against Trump amounted to nothing more than smear attempts which conveniently ignores their own shameful behavior.



Oldbear,
Sorry for delaying my response. It's a combination of unexpected personal events plus wanting to give more attention to the information you provided. I will get back to you. I will give a brief response to one of your points which I placed yours in italics:

That is the problem with much of the J6 events. Many who hate Trump assume without evidence that he deliberately encouraged violence and criminal behavior.



People who hate Trump often believe Pelosi's denial that the offer happened, and ignore anything else. Those more objective look at the people making statements, and consider whether the statement is biased on its face or could be objective.

That the Capitol police chief at that time says the offer was made and he forwarded the request is strong evidence, as this man neither worked for Trump personally nor had anything to gain by confirming the matter. Everyone claiming the offer was not made had an interest in denying the offer.


Mr. Oldbear,
Let me say this very simply that based on my follow-up research of your comments about the Capitol police, you were right and I was wrong.



Thanks BUDOS.

The funny thing (strange, not comedy) about this situation, is how both the Trump supporters and the anti-Trump people screwed up their arguments.

It should be obvious on its face, that Trump handled this situation badly. While I do think there were a lot of dirty tricks in the 2020 election, the difference between seeing something you count as dirty and being able to prove an illegal behavior happened is a very big chasm. Trump could have raised questions about issues while letting the process move forward, then let momentum carry the argument without the court drama. Trump's decision to press arguments he could not prove cost him a lot of credibility, which he only regained because Biden also went well over the line.

That said, Trump's words and actions were crass and showed poor judgment, but never rose to the level of actual illegal activity, or worthy of that cheap-trick impeachment by Democrats. Rather than send Trump home in shame, the Democrats revealed themselves to be just as petty if not even more.

By the time Joe Biden was inaugurated, many voters believed the two parties to be full of petulant, angry narcissists. Not much has happened since to improve that image for the average voter.

Oldbear,
I again apologize for the delay in responding. Similar to before I have a bit more going on than usual, plus wanting to research the information you took the time to present.
As I indicated earlier your report about the capitol police, you were right and I was wrong. However, related to the statement that Trump requested 10,000 troops, independent factchecks and Pentagon records find no evidence that Trump formally requested or authorized 10,000 National Guard troops for January 6, or that Pelosi "turned them down." Trump has repeatedly said he did this, but there is no written order, no formal request through the usual channels, and no record of Pelosi being asked to approve such a request.

There does exist testimony from Gen. Mark Milley and Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller indicates Trump made a general remark days before Jan. 6 along the lines of "make sure it's safe" and that they could use the Guard if needednot a specific, numeric, predeployment order for 10,000 troops at the Capitol. That's very different from a concrete, documented directive that was then blocked by Democrats, as indicated in one of the articles you sent me.

Oldbear,
Are we done with this topic?
I was hoping for more discussion on the topic, including opinion on the information I presented in response to yours and vice versa.

Hello again, BUDOS;

I think we have both made our case on that topic, and since neither of us is into throwing mindless tantrums we have said what there is to say.

ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know, but "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will." sounds pretty violent to me. Especially from someone who has their finger on the actual trigger to do so.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

I don't know, but "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will." sounds pretty violent to me. Especially from someone who has their finger on the actual trigger to do so.

It's somewhat softer than the demarche Clinton sent Omar Bashir. (I held it in my hands, hot off the printer.)
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

This is how normal people act without politics leading all their decisions (and they were playing Boston).

Love your neighbor




Really neat. Thanks for posting.

Just curious, if it was Buffalo vs Boston in Buffalo, why were they singing the Canadian national anthem?
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Jack Bauer said:

This is how normal people act without politics leading all their decisions (and they were playing Boston).

Love your neighbor




Really neat. Thanks for posting.

Just curious, if it was Buffalo vs Boston in Buffalo, why were they singing the Canadian national anthem?


Proximity as Buffalo is right on the border. Plus most of their fans are Canadian.

Detroit is the other team that sings both anthems before each game.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:




That is a pretty good ad

It establishes right off the gun the "why are you running".

And it is jarring in a good way to show the mansions of the political class with the home of a person burned down via failed government action in the face of a fire.

So no idea if he will win…but it's a damn good ad
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Boognish Bear put up a message saying WH now using Hate Speech.

I said Pot meet Kettle. It needs to stop on both sides.


It went all over from there. I was speaking to the WH using Hate Speech.

Regardless, "Hate Speech", "Violent Speech", "Racist Speech" both sides need to stop. You guys want to quibble over who is more wrong, have at it.


Did you even read what I wrote? I gave a detailed layout of how it went down. The first post was about violent speech. Then later the hate speech one came up.

So I was correct that the original topic was violent speech. You just chose to ignore that and only focus on one specific post as you have a tendency to do.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are laughing...

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

We are laughing...




I have a really hard time believing the Democrat voters are at this point. Their party is even worse than Republican leadership at letting good candidates rise to the top.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Was curious as I've never known anyone with an issue related to glyphosate, so I made this query on Gemini:

how does glyphosate health issues compare to other herbicides commonly used?

Answer:

Glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, is considered to have low acute toxicity but is classified as a "probable human carcinogen" (Group 2A) by the IARC. Studies link it to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver diseases, and endocrine disruption. Compared to other herbicides, glyphosate has a higher cancer classification than some but is often less acutely toxic than older alternatives.
International Agency for Research on Cancer
International Agency for Research on Cancer


Glyphosate vs. Other Common Herbicides

Glyphosate: While the EPA considers it safe when used as labeled, independent research links it to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney/liver damage, and neurological issues. It is linked to increased risk of chronic liver disease and is a "probable" carcinogen.
2,4-D: A common alternative, 2,4-D, has been linked to similar potential health hazards, including cancer and nervous system impacts, often leading to it being compared closely with glyphosate in risk assessments.
Dicamba & Paraquat: Dicamba has raised concerns over drift and volatility impacting non-target areas and health. Paraquat, though less widely used than glyphosate, is highly toxic if ingested, posing a much higher acute, fatal risk than glyphosate.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
National Institutes of Health (.gov)


Key Health Risk Findings for Glyphosate

Cancer Risk: The IARC classified it as a Group 2A carcinogen (probably carcinogenic to humans) in 2015. A 2023 analysis suggested it raises cancer risk, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma, by 41%.
Childhood Exposure: Studies linked early life exposure to liver inflammation and metabolic disorder, potentially causing long-term health issues like diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Endocrine Disruption: Evidence suggests glyphosate-based formulations act as endocrine disruptors.
Formulation Toxicity: Research suggests that glyphosate formulations (like Roundup) are often more toxic than the active ingredient alone, sometimes containing heavy metals.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
National Institutes of Health (.gov)


Regulatory Discrepancies

EPA (USA): Considers glyphosate low toxicity and unlikely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.
IARC (WHO): Classified it as probably carcinogenic in 2015.
EFSA/JMPR: (European Food Safety Authority & WHO/FAO) determined it is unlikely to be a carcinogen.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The topic of the conversation is the political Left and they are the fascists. I use the term accurately because I understand what it actually means as opposed to the lies of the Left. They have trouble defining anything correctly. They don't even know what a woman is!
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I will agree that we have both had our say, but I don't agree that we have made our case. However if leaving the discussion where it is for now is your preference then that is definitely better than either of us having one of those useless tantrums.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

The topic of the conversation is the political Left and they are the fascists. I use the term accurately because I understand what it actually means as opposed to the lies of the Left. They have trouble defining anything correctly. They don't even know what a woman is!

there it is, yet again. Homie cannot use a sentence without using the term fascist. Ironically teacher man seems to be the fascist. You know Alanis Morrisette? Nah, She's a dirty Canadian.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

The topic of the conversation is the political Left and they are the fascists. I use the term accurately because I understand what it actually means as opposed to the lies of the Left. They have trouble defining anything correctly. They don't even know what a woman is!

he's going for the record...teacher man is. Someone be on the lookout without a response that contains fascist.. Moreover, he uses it incorrectly a lot! There is our education system for you.
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

We are laughing...




Harris doesn't stand a chance and no one wants to be like California (Newsom). Watch out for Josh Shapiro though
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

FLBear5630 said:

Boognish Bear put up a message saying WH now using Hate Speech.

I said Pot meet Kettle. It needs to stop on both sides.


It went all over from there. I was speaking to the WH using Hate Speech.

Regardless, "Hate Speech", "Violent Speech", "Racist Speech" both sides need to stop. You guys want to quibble over who is more wrong, have at it.


Did you even read what I wrote? I gave a detailed layout of how it went down. The first post was about violent speech. Then later the hate speech one came up.

So I was correct that the original topic was violent speech. You just chose to ignore that and only focus on one specific post as you have a tendency to do.

His hate for Trump has severely impaired his ability to comprehend current events and craft well-reasoned commentary on them. He can only rant to momentarily relieve his distress.
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Remember when dem voters said we needed a "mother figure" in the White House, and decided to start calling her "Mommala"

Lmao good times. Dem voters are dumb.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Screw you. I am telling you what I was talking about. If you don't like it, kiss off.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't f-ing tell me what I was saying. I am clarifying exactly what I said. Trump is as bad as the left and both need to stop. Period.

You guys can go on having a pissing contest about who is more wrong. They both are.

Want to disagree, have at it. But, YOU and most certainly the other MAGA's are not the authority on what is correct and what is not!
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Danielsjackson114 said:

Remember when dem voters said we needed a "mother figure" in the White House, and decided to start calling her "Mommala"

Lmao good times. Dem voters are dumb.


They're so cringe
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Screw you. I am telling you what I was talking about. If you don't like it, kiss off.

LOL.

And now you get angry and upset and resort to name calling.

If that is what you were talking about then you would have limited your posts to saying you originally. But you didn't. You left it at a more general "the conversation" as in what everyone was talking about.

Now that you have been proven wrong you get all upset.

If you are only talking about one specific thing then you cannot get mad or even defensive when others talk about topics outside of that like you have been.
First Page Last Page
Page 456 of 482
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.