See earlier in the thread. He is persisting with the ridiculous and spurious claim that Jennifer Lawrence said the hurricanes were attributable to Mother Nature being angry with the election result. The right wing media are making the same claim.
What she actually said is that global warming is caused by humans; that the only way we can fix this is by voting for a government that will address the problem, and it’s shocking that we didn’t; and that the hurricanes show how bad the situation is.
Only a moron or somebody willfully misrepresenting her words would persist with this. Starving Artist has yet to clarify which he is.
He’s a Trump supporter. Trump supporters are proof that “moron” and “liar” are not mutually exclusive. It’s true that it’s not really clear which particular trait is dominant here, whether Starving Artist is willfully misrepresenting what Lawrence said or whether his reading comprehension is at the level of a particularly stupid first-grader, but I find the distinction to be uninteresting.
I just went back over Lawrence’s comments in preparing a response to tomndebb, Rieman and wolfpup, and I now agree that her statement regarding Mother Nature’s rage and wrath was indeed made within the context of the election and it’s feared impact on the issue of global warming and not in regard to Trump.
So, my bad. I was wrong and I retract my allegation that she was.
I still think she’s an idiot and I still think she truly believes on some level that ‘Mother Nature’ is pissed that the U.S. isn’t doing more to keep her cool and comfortable, and that Lawrence’s remarks were every bit as stupid as Kirk Cameron’s.
I’m also still pissed at myself for liking her at the beginning of her career.
So there! Don’t say I never gave you guys anything!
So pointing out that Trump hasn’t killed anyone as opposed to liberalism writ large in the form of Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot’s communist regimes is ‘supporting’ him?
The question under discussion had to do with why, if ‘Mother Nature’ were punishing the U.S. for electing Trump [now discounted], why didn’t she go after ISIS or the liberal commies who murdered and starved up to 70 million people (you know, the ones whose deaths Rieman so casually handwaved away as a dead horse, because those deaths were apparently nothing when compared to the 40,000 or so alleged (and merely alleged) to occur at some time in the who-knows-when future because Donald Trump.
In that context pointing out that Trump hasn’t killed anyone at all compared to all those killed by liberal efforts to ensure that, wah, nobody has more than anybody else, is hardly a ‘defense’ of Trump, it’s a simple fact.
As Bricker once inquired (and got something along the lines of ‘fuck you’ as a response), is pointing out that somebody didn’t do something defending them?
When did ISIS murder and starve up to 70 million people? Because the way you just said that they did is the same way that Jennifer Lawrence said mother nature’s wrath was retribution for voting for Il Douche.
Does this defense involve a paper towel tube, or do you use a hurricane-stained MAGA cap for this one?
Since Bricker is a former PD, I’d be real surprised if that was NEVER a defense that was attempted, if not by him, then by at least by one of his co-workers.
Probably not as common as pleading to a lesser charge, or simply pointing out that the government had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person HAD done the something in question, but still.
So, you acknowledge that you fabricated Lawrence’s claim that Mother Nature was punishing the U.S. for the election; but still insist that your bizarre response to something that she didn’t say was just introducing the relevant facts?
Launching into the “liberals=communism” chestnut seriously tore away any credibility you were building in defending Trump by saying at least he’s not a killer.
Hahaha, you guys kill me! I make a comment to the effect that if hurricanes are killing people and breaking things because Mother Nature is pissed that we elected Trump then why haven’t they gone after other countries with vastly worse leaders, and your response is “Shriek! OMG, SA’s defending Donald Trump!!! You can tell he’s a Trump supporter because he’s acting like there are worse people than Donald Trump!!!”
It is to :D.
All I can say is if you keep this shit up, you’ll be the minority party in this country for a long, long time.
Those people are no closer to “liberalism writ large” than David Duke and Adolf Hitler are to conservatism writ large.
I really hope you get past this sort of childishness someday. Liberals aren’t evil. Liberalism isn’t evil. Reasonable, smart, honest, and decent people can come to different conclusions about politics based on different life experience.
You’re conflating people with ideology. While the people I mentioned may not have been typical of liberalism writ large, the ideology they enforced, because it couldn’t hold up any other way, is. And certainly communism is liberalism writ large. It’s designed to hit all the well-known liberal hotspots, making sure no one has more than anyone else, that government is big daddy who takes care of and provides for everyone from cradle to grave, and is brutally intolerant of disagreement. It’s no accident that the most serious crimes under communism are criticism and dissent.
I agree that liberals aren’t evil. Unlike our liberal counterparts, we conservatives tend to think liberals either have good ideas but hose up the implementation and make ten other things worse for every one thing they make better (which would be those like me), or they think liberals are well-intentioned but have bad ideas. Admittedly we do think certain liberals of the combative SJW stripe are not particularly good people. Liberals on the other hand, are the ones who view any political view not their own as being the result of all sorts of evil characteristics and motivations, and that the people who hold them are ipso-facto awful people.
Pretty much everything you say here about what liberals believe is mostly wrong or all wrong. I’ve tried to help you with this before, many times, I’m pretty sure, but your mind has been closed off to the possibility of learning what liberals actually believe from actual real-world liberals.
What you describe is not liberalism and liberals don’t believe that stuff, for the most part. Most liberals oppose the following: “making sure no one has more than anyone else”, “that government is big daddy who takes care of and provides for everyone from cradle to grave”, and “intolerance of disagreement”. I certainly oppose all of that stuff and would strongly vote against any politician who proposed it. And I certainly do not “view any political view not their own as being the result of all sorts of evil characteristics and motivations, and that the people who hold them are ipso-facto awful people”, and neither do most of the real-world liberals I know or have ever spoken to.
Yes, simple denial has always been your weapon of choice.
As far as my view of what liberals desire, I can only go by what they constantly agitate for or against. And communism, apart from from the dictators that it can’t exist without, is pretty close to a perfect fit.
Your mind is made up. I get it – you think you know how folks like me think, and anything I say contrary must be lies or delusion.
I just wish you’d consider that maybe you didn’t. That maybe talking to me and asking questions would be a better way to learn how folks like me actually think than whatever impressions you get from right-wing infotainers, or crazy people on the internet, or wherever it is that you got these mistaken beliefs from.
From my end, your rantings about liberals and liberalism sound nuts. It sounds no different than the rantings of people who absolutely despise Christianity describing Christianity and Christians, and insisting they know better what real Christianity is than actual Christians. They inevitably get most of it wrong, as do you when you try to describe liberals and liberalism.
No, it’s pretty damn far, actually.
If you ever decide that you don’t know everything there is to know about liberals and liberalism, then there are plenty of decent liberals here who would be happy to help you learn.
It’s very frustrating. I try to have an honest, reasonable, and decent conversation with you, about some very apparent (from my point of view) strong misconceptions you have about people like me, and you refuse to even try to engage. Isn’t is possible that I’m an honest and decent person, and that you’re just wrong about some things related to folks who think like me? Is it really that impossible that I’m not lying, delusional, or “in denial”?
I’m not saying you’re evil, or your philosophy is evil, or anything like that at all. I’m just saying that you’re wrong about this certain group of people that I’m a part of – and that “enemies” of a philosophy typically know less about that philosophy than those who actually are part of it… and this goes for conservatism too. I’ll readily admit that you, a conservative, understand how conservatives think better than I do. Is it really that impossible that a liberal like me might better understand how liberals think than you do?
