This type of assholishness is your basic Republican tactic. Another nasty remark from this spincter, just to be a spiteful little fuck.
The worst I can do is leagues above your best. You act like typos give you superiority. You scrabble for commas and semi colons and act like a nasty teenage girl with a slam book.
And then you hide till you feel safe in creeping back.
Again, get the GOP to adopt that standard with regard to Hillary and you can get all pissy.
Bugger off till then, wankstain.
Yes, the madam of the whorehouse was calling someone else slutty.
Maybe in Gilead or Trumpworld.
You’ve made repeated reference to “liberal echo chambers” and I am not the only person to call you on it.
“Getting the vapors” is yet another dogwhistle for the concept of “hysteria.” It is not gender neutral. “Getting the vapors” calls to mind a corseted lady swooning to her fainting couch.
How odd that you only seem to find anything unseemly when it’s a woman being sarcastic. Just coincidence, I’m sure.
Calling a woman nuts, crazy, hysterical, mentally unstable, is part of the proud tradition of sexist assholes choosing to label themselves and other men logical while calling women emotional.
They hardly ever deny those, either. In 2018, 2937 wiretaps were authorized nationwide. 2 were denied.
I’m sure prosecutors know exactly what to say to get their warrant requests approved. And I’m sure they say it and I’m sure that what they present is not always the complete and unslanted truth. And if the judge picks up on deficiencies or omissions in the application, they are allowed to keep revising and resubmitting.
The above article doesn’t have any clear data on the rate of approval of extension requests. It does mention that 1355 extensions were granted, and if I’m reading the article correctly, that does not count multiple consecutive extensions of the same order. But it doesn’t mention any rejected requests.
It’s an interesting report in general, 6 states account for 80% of all wiretapping requests, almost half of all requests are from NY and CA.
But the bar is just not very high for ANYONE, which is my point.
What percentage of crimes go unsolved (or unprosecuted)?
Why the hell not? Political philosophies are often about morals. And the policies are often putting those morals into practice.
For instance, there is no discussion about abortion rights without discussing morality. That’s all it’s based on. If morals weren’t in the way, no one would care if you got an abortion or didn’t get one. It’s only because one side thinks it is wrong that there is any debate. The only way to convince people that it should be illegal is to convince them that it is so wrong that we need to make a law preventing it.
The abortion debate either means discussing morality or discussing nothing at all. The same is true of much of politics these days. Remove the moral component, and there is no more debate on racism, on homosexuality, on transgenderism, etc.
I’m not even entirely sure what the differences in left and right are if you remove morality. Even stuff like “bigger government” vs. “smaller government” is based on certain values–some are willing to give up more freedom to deal with injustice, while others are willing to have some injustice for greater freedom. Both of those are moral calculations.
Where I think the problem is is not making these moral arguments. It’s when they are used as thought terminating cliches. However, I can’t blame one side for this. The pro-life side does this the same as the pro-choice side, for instance.
Real moral arguments involve balancing disparate moral concerns, not asserting that one moral concern is the only one that matters. At the very least, you have to show why that one concern is the more important one. You know, argument and debate.
To me ‘Shodan’ means an ‘expert Go player.’ When he and I were still on speaking terms I called fuckwit ‘Ten-Kyu’ — that’s the term for a Go player so bad that a Shodan can beat him even with a nine-stone handicap.
Hurricane and Annoying were such assholes that I actually took Shodan off of Ignore! He seemed sincere and intelligent compared with most Trumpists. But he ended up back on Ignore after just a few days. He’s far more insufferable now than he was just a few years ago.
… So I appreciate being kept up-to-date on what the “better” Republicans are like: 
Shodan wasn’t this bad in the pre-Trump era, was he? I wonder which of the following is closer to the truth:
(1) Creeps like Shodan are sincere but deluded. When their mentors like Sean Hannity or Alex Jones direct them to worship Trumpism they just think “OK, I wouldn’t but if those are the instructions …”
(2) Or were they evil misogynist bastards all along, and are delighted that Trumpism lets them show their true colors?
Which is it? Shodan, can you help us out here?
I think so. That’s one reason they’re not worried about environment or climate change: We’re approaching the End of Days anyway. IIRC, Even George W. Bush seemed to buy into Apocalyptic scenario.
Blah blah, IANAL, blah blah. The phone call was certainly criminal, and IIRC bribery (which it was) is specifically listed as impeachable in the Const. Treason? I think so, but then again IANAL.
Margin is a woman. I barely keep track of fellow Dopers (I have trouble remembering whether Damuri or D’Anconia is the stupid one 
) But even I knew margin was female. That affected her military service: she had to worry not just about bombs, but her Kavanaugh-like fellow soldiers as well.
If you didn’t even know her gender, any opinion you have about margin is worthless.
I’m not Shodan but I think that, as Republican behavior becomes more indefensible, you either leave the party (we have several former Republicans posting still), you go all in (like Jim Peebles) or you just have so much cognitive dissonance that the party you’re still supporting is so awful that you end up just a bundle of snark and drive-bys (Shodan)
D’Anconia is the stupid one who adds almost no value except for drive-by posts. Damuri is the exhausting one who waits a week, then does post after post responding to every post in the last week with long essays that only occasionally have facts or address the poster.
[quote=“septimus, post:268, topic:845663”]
Shodan wasn’t this bad in the pre-Trump era, was he? I wonder which of the following is closer to the truth:
(1) Creeps like Shodan are sincere but deluded. When their mentors like Sean Hannity or Alex Jones direct them to worship Trumpism they just think “OK, I wouldn’t but if those are the instructions …”
(2) Or were they evil misogynist bastards all along, and are delighted that Trumpism lets them show their true colors?
Which is it? Shodan, can you help us out here?
He’s always been this bad. He deliberately hangs out in liberal or feminist spaces specifically to troll, posts passive-aggressive attacks, then slithets away till it blows over.
What fascinates me is that if I were not a soldier, I don’t think anybody would care. All the little sexist dogwhistles would pass unchallenged because misogyny is so normal that it fades into the wallpaper. People hate it when you call it out because it’s a case of, “Once you see it one time, you suddenly can’t stop seeing it, because it is everywhere.”
Trump just said the quiet parts aloud that are normally reserved for places where sexist, predatory, men congregate. He bragged about sexually assaulting women. People didn’t vote for him in spite of him being a predator. They voted for him specifically because. A lot of Trumpie men live vicariously through him. “Not being a raging asshole” is too high a standard for them, and they resent not being able to trump Trump 24/7. They fancy themselves oppressed because they can’t force other people to live by their rules.
Look at those ridiculous court cases brought by the “religious freedom” assholes. They want the “freedom” to force everybody to live by their religion, so they go around whining about issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, or the oppression of being pharmacists who don’tget to deny women birth control “because it’s against their religion.” It’s as if a Muslim got a job on a hog farm and demanded they switch to chickens.
They've been using euphemisms for their hatred for years, *and they hate it.*. And you. That hasn't changed. They used to be able to punch down without being questioned. They resent not being able to use the "n" word. They resent having to hide their hatred. Trump let them loose.Sage Rat (emphasis in quote below mine):
I’ll assume you mean the New Testament? The Old Testament very much provides for divorce.
Try knowing what you’re talking about. It’s fun.
Paul: 1 Corinthians 7, salient point here:
The only thing the two testaments seem to agree on is that there is one unpardonable sin, but they do not agree on what that sin is.
The New Testament also provides for divorce, in two circumstances, not just one (or even zero).
Oh you people and your (possibly correct) facts.
I suspect that I was being uncareful with my language but would have a point if I’d added an asterisk. I’ll check what the exclusions were and update.
Why don’t you change your user-name to reflect a different critter than the rodent? See if you can guess the animal I’m thinking of.
You misspelled “Max S.” with that last sentence.
Can we move on from “You misspelled X” please? It stopped being funny when the dinosaurs shat on it.
I know where you’re coming from, but Max S. engages much more fruitfully than DA, responds honestly to arguments, and has admitted error, changed his (her? Maxine?) mind. I wouldn’t put the two of them in the same bucket.
How is it unconstitutional again? I mean I have ascribed nefarious motives to trump but that might be because I generally don’t like him. But there is nothing unconstitutional to me not liking you.
A reasonable person could conclude that this was not unconstitutional behavior.
I think that Republicans by and large feel otherwise. Right now what we have is mostly hearsay. Sure Trump has prevented us from getting direct testimony but we cannot assume the worst simply because he is telling everyone not to talk to his political enemies.
This is being tried in court and it is not clear that congress will prevail.
Just because I don’t drink your brand of kool aid doesn’t make mean I’m not a liberal.
By almost every metric, I am liberal just not a self-defeating, irrational, woke, SJW liberal.
You engage in purity tests that chase away moderates and conservatives who don’t subscribe to your brand of liberal orthodoxy.
Do you know what an echo chamber is? Because it doesn’t sound like you do.
Yep and according to useful tools like you, anyone that isn’t on tilt all the time is a trump fellating conservative.
I understand. From where you are standing a moderate liberal looks like rock ribbed conservative. But that has more to do with where you are standing than where I am standing.