America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by frankj1. 151 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
The liberal media take on calling POTUS an MF'er
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
dstieger Offline
#101 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 4:35 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
PHil, I if I recall the compared transgressions, the private one was done to the guy's face. And it wasn't in the realm of racist, or what is commonly referred to as hate speech.

Regardless....I get what you're saying and the idealist might agree with you; but the reality, I think is different. If D calls refers to Trump as 'that MF'er' during conversations that have a certain expectation of privacy.....I think it IS different than C saying "Trump is a MF'er" in a large, mixed and very public gathering -- may not be right that its different, but I think it is
tailgater Offline
#102 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 5:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
All kidding and jousting aside, Tail is stating something that should be obvious to all. A private conversation is completely different than a public speaking engagement. It's really as simple as that. Our elected officials should not publicly call the president a MF. This could be tantamount to inciting a riot. Even if they believe our president is the devil incarnate, those are conversations to be held in private if they are unable to speak civilly. My only real point of disagreement with Tail is that Trump is perhaps the biggest provocateur of hateful public speech and I do not see conservatives denounce this like they should.


You only think we disagree.
Trump is absolutely the biggest provocateur. He was before being elected. He is now.
Now, we disagree on many of the things deemed "hateful", but that's not relevant to this discussion.

And I don't care that some bimbo called Trump a name.

I'm pointing out the severe hypocrisy of our media.
Trump alludes to something that might be nasty and the world is ending.
This b*tch makes a sailor blush with her assessment of our sitting president and they say the only reason anyone is even remotely upset is because she's a woman of color.

I point this out and people try to blur the lines of what is being protested.

As for your last point: you will never see me denounce trump "like we should" because you and I disagree on what deserves denouncing.
tailgater Offline
#103 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 5:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Phil222 wrote:
I do not understand how someone could say it’s acceptable to call someone an X in private, but not in public? I don’t differentiate between the two, and this is in regards to what we deem as appropriate vocabulary in American culture.

Of course there will be varying degrees and circumstances to each transgression, but the location of the offense should not determine its appropriateness. That should be an individual determination in regards to the term(s) being used.

Either it’s appropriate to call Obama the “N-word” or it’s not. It shouldn’t matter where you say it, or who you say it to. Just my two cents. Interesting discussion though. Maybe I just haven’t grasped this concept yet.


Wow.
Introducing the N word.

A whole new dimension, and one that most would agree serves no place in public or private.

Well, except for the latest Hip hop song.
And of course on the NBA court between players of color.


So let's recap:
Claiming that someone has sexual relations with their own mother: OK
Saying an outdated racial slur to no one in particular: Not OK.

Not saying I disagree.
Just putting some perspective on it.
Phil222 Offline
#104 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 5:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
I agree with you about the vast majority of people upset with what she said had nothing to do with the color of her skin.

My point was that if a term or particular discussion upsets me in public, then it will still upset me in private or vice versa. I don't find one acceptable and the other not. That's all.
tailgater Offline
#105 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 8:58 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Phil222 wrote:
I agree with you about the vast majority of people upset with what she said had nothing to do with the color of her skin.

My point was that if a term or particular discussion upsets me in public, then it will still upset me in private or vice versa. I don't find one acceptable and the other not. That's all.


I see what you're saying.
But I think there is a difference, and it's not insignificant.

Think of a boss chastising an employee.
Behind closed doors, the employee should respect that boss.
In the middle of a meeting, that employee has right to be angry.


There's a time and place.
Phil222 Offline
#106 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 9:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
If by chastising the employee we’re talking about calling their home a chithole, or them an MFer, or grabbing them by the whatever, then I think neither situation would be ideal. In all instances, I would probably feel the boss is unqualified for their job.

While one of those scenarios might bring about stronger feelings, I would certainly try to condemn all of them with equal disdain. Not saying that I'm perfect though. Sometimes personal bias gets in the way.
Speyside Offline
#107 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 10:43 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Fair enough Tail. I think there is another interesting difference in our viewpoints that you touched upon directly and indirectly. Her use of MF I do see as inappropriate, but it doesn't bother me at all. I don't see it being used in a literal sense. I see it as more of a venting of anger. In all honesty certain actions of Trump bother me deeply. He agreed to a deal that was a compromise brought to him by both sides. Then he reneged on his word. He did the same thing involving DACA. Many real people are hurting because of him. I understand that conservatives are probably not bothered by these specific actions of his, but this does irritate me quite a bit. Also Democrats caved at the last shut down and then Trump went back on his word. Republicans should at least be aware of why Democrats are not going to cave this time. Comprise is not giving Trump what he wants and getting nothing in return.
victor809 Offline
#108 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 11:00 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Seriously.... Why does it matter?

Decorum is gone.
You dont need to focus on Trump's schithole comments... Or any other private comment. look at his comments about the press... "Enemy of the people". A strong argument can be made that those are statements which are fundamentally more damaging than any cursing.

Any rational expectations for our public servants to act as professional as we are expected to in a meeting is gone. Whining about it now is laughable.

Suck it up motherfker.
Speyside Offline
#109 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 11:10 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
So if a believer in any God said to an Atheiest G** D*** you would it be meaningless? On the flip side if an Atheist said to a believer in any God G** D*** you would it have any meaning at all?
Phil222 Offline
#110 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2019, 11:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
victor809 wrote:
look at his comments about the press... "Enemy of the people". A strong argument can be made that those are statements which are fundamentally more damaging than any cursing.

I agree with this. I also believe in regards to certain media there’s an argument to be made that the press is the enemy of the people. That is of course if an enemy's goal is to actively oppose, control, or weaken someone or something.
tailgater Offline
#111 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 10:18 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Phil222 wrote:
If by chastising the employee we’re talking about calling their home a chithole, or them an MFer, or grabbing them by the whatever, then I think neither situation would be ideal. In all instances, I would probably feel the boss is unqualified for their job.

While one of those scenarios might bring about stronger feelings, I would certainly try to condemn all of them with equal disdain. Not saying that I'm perfect though. Sometimes personal bias gets in the way.



Are you saying that you've never made a comment to a buddy about a hot broad who walked by? Words you would never say to her face? Or at least never should.

Life is about the reality of the situation. Although you are correct that some things matter not where they are spoken, the vast majority of things require context to determine their impact. Good or bad.
tailgater Offline
#112 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 10:22 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Fair enough Tail. I think there is another interesting difference in our viewpoints that you touched upon directly and indirectly. Her use of MF I do see as inappropriate, but it doesn't bother me at all. I don't see it being used in a literal sense. I see it as more of a venting of anger. In all honesty certain actions of Trump bother me deeply. He agreed to a deal that was a compromise brought to him by both sides. Then he reneged on his word. He did the same thing involving DACA. Many real people are hurting because of him. I understand that conservatives are probably not bothered by these specific actions of his, but this does irritate me quite a bit. Also Democrats caved at the last shut down and then Trump went back on his word. Republicans should at least be aware of why Democrats are not going to cave this time. Comprise is not giving Trump what he wants and getting nothing in return.


I'm thirsty.
When we getting together for a beer?
tailgater Offline
#113 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 10:24 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Seriously.... Why does it matter?

Decorum is gone.
You dont need to focus on Trump's schithole comments... Or any other private comment. look at his comments about the press... "Enemy of the people". A strong argument can be made that those are statements which are fundamentally more damaging than any cursing.

Any rational expectations for our public servants to act as professional as we are expected to in a meeting is gone. Whining about it now is laughable.

Suck it up motherfker.


When words cease to matter you can adopt this warped perspective.

But as long as they do matter, then context is critical.
tailgater Offline
#114 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 10:27 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Phil222 wrote:
I agree with this. I also believe in regards to certain media there’s an argument to be made that the press is the enemy of the people. That is of course if an enemy's goal is to actively oppose, control, or weaken someone or something.


Enter Areva Martin and her Race Baiting CNN counterparts.
victor809 Offline
#115 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 11:00 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Words matter. But decorum is no longer a judge of those words. Trump has ensured this. He ensured it when he chanted "lock her up" about his political opponent. The ensured it when he called the press the enemy of the people. He ensured it when he publicly said some reporter had "blood coming out of her 'wherever'".

This is the logical result of his actions. Suck it up and quit whining.

Motherfking snowflake.
tailgater Offline
#116 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 11:01 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Words matter. But decorum is no longer a judge of those words. Trump has ensured this. He ensured it when he chanted "lock her up" about his political opponent. The ensured it when he called the press the enemy of the people. He ensured it when he publicly said some reporter had "blood coming out of her 'wherever'".

This is the logical result of his actions. Suck it up and quit whining.

Motherfking snowflake.



Are you saying that in private or in public?
victor809 Offline
#117 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Both.
tailgater Offline
#118 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 11:21 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
So it's OK to call the sitting President a mutherfukker in a public speech, but it's not ok if someone says the N word regardless of the context?
Who decides this?


While you ponder that, I'd like to point out (again) that it's not me who is offended by words.
The only thing I find offensive (again) is the hypocrisy.

We've heard for almost 3 years now how "offensive" Trump is, and then as soon as we get someone bat-sh*t crazy enough to say the things that congresswoman said we learn that it's now OK to do so because the table had been set.

I'm glad she said it. Glad that she is showing her true colors. Glad that anyone who supports her will be compelled to STFU when trump shats out his next tweet. Glad that there is common ground to learn that words are just words.

Hell, if people weren't so hypocritical then it could actually be a turning point to allow us to come together.
But instead we are fed even greater doses of hypocrisy.
tailgater Offline
#119 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 11:22 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Both.


You must be bilingual.
Phil222 Offline
#120 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 11:32 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
tailgater wrote:
if people weren't so hypocritical then it could actually be a turning point to allow us to come together.

Best thing you've said in this entire thread.
dstieger Offline
#121 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 12:07 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Speyside wrote:
So if a believer in any God said to an Atheiest G** D*** you would it be meaningless? On the flip side if an Atheist said to a believer in any God G** D*** you would it have any meaning at all?


Real question?

Couple ways to attack it, I suppose.

One, would be to first determine how the phrase gets meaning in the first place;
-Context matters...almost always
-Intent matters....often
-Perception of 'receiver' matters....almost always
You have to sort through those (and probably other) aspects
Some might subscribe to the thought that 'hurtful' words can only have 'power' if the 'receiver' allows

Another way to come at it would be to poll a spectrum of believers/non-believers

Another perspective might be to ask whether the actual words have any real meaning to anyone beyond the societal norms that say they are 'bad words' and, again, the context of quotes

For this atheist, the actual words mean absolutely nothing -- but, the context means everything; if they are coming to me from someone I respect and are said in an 'angry fashion', then they have a lot of meaning.....but not really any better or worse than FU or a number of other things.

The conversation is sort of similar to one I had with a good friend about what is said after a sneeze. I was asked "Why do you say "Gesundheit"? I think 'God Bless you' would be better."
I replied that coming from me, it feels a little silly, and in fact, perhaps almost 'fake'.....but, when I say gesundheit, it is a genuine attempt at being polite....so while 'god bless' might make you feel better for some reason, you are probably going to get gesundheit....sorry
victor809 Offline
#122 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 12:30 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Always all or nothing with tail....

Words can still have meaning and have decorum out the window.

Motherfker is a relatively meaningless word (literally, it's meaning is almost never actually what is implied when it is used). It is a word which lacks decorum.

But one can't expect you to understand any of this.
Speyside Offline
#123 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 1:53 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Serious question Dave, somehow I went from thinking about MF is just anger at someone, I don't ever take the literal meaning. Then went hmmmm, this interests me.
tailgater Offline
#124 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:04 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Always all or nothing with tail....

Words can still have meaning and have decorum out the window.

Motherfker is a relatively meaningless word (literally, it's meaning is almost never actually what is implied when it is used). It is a word which lacks decorum.

But one can't expect you to understand any of this.


I only asked about it's literal use when someone here said it was "true" and therefore OK to say.

But I'm the one with an "all or nothing" outlook.
You run with that, Skippy.
RMAN4443 Offline
#125 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:08 PM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
aren't we all a bunch of Mother F'ers?...Except for those Father F'ers amongst us....not that there's anything wrong with that Think
victor809 Offline
#126 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:10 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I have been a motherfkr in the past...
But I'm not likely to be a motherfker in the future. And I certainly am not one now.

Tail is still an all or nothing guy who doesn't understand nuance or the difference between meaning and decorum.

But that'll never change.
delta1 Offline
#127 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:28 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
tailgater wrote:
So it's OK to call the sitting President a mutherfukker in a public speech, but it's not ok if someone says the N word regardless of the context?
Who decides this?


While you ponder that, I'd like to point out (again) that it's not me who is offended by words.
The only thing I find offensive (again) is the hypocrisy.

We've heard for almost 3 years now how "offensive" Trump is, and then as soon as we get someone bat-sh*t crazy enough to say the things that congresswoman said we learn that it's now OK to do so because the table had been set.

I'm glad she said it. Glad that she is showing her true colors. Glad that anyone who supports her will be compelled to STFU when trump shats out his next tweet. Glad that there is common ground to learn that words are just words.

Hell, if people weren't so hypocritical then it could actually be a turning point to allow us to come together.
But instead we are fed even greater doses of hypocrisy.






maybe she shoulda said, "Trump is a BAAAAAAAD Mutherfukker"....that better?

no it's not OK, but coarse public discourse has become normalized...and that is unfortunate...how do we regain civility?

obviously, pointing out hypocrisy on the other side is not bridging the divide...any better ideas?


I saw an interview of the congresswoman, the first female Muslim elected to the House. She tried to explain that her anger at Trump flows from his anti-Muslim rhetoric and Muslim travel ban...she seemed to be regretful for her use of profanity, but was unapologetic, ending the conversation by saying she is "passionate"


are we electing passionate people who feel so strongly about their political opponents that they resort to name-calling? I think we have...it's become tribal warfare...
DrafterX Offline
#128 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
The Muslim travel ban..?? Think

You mean the travel ban from the terrorist countries that represent 5% of the Muslim population right..?? Mellow
delta1 Offline
#129 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
I'm mustering up some of my strongest civility now, Drafter...
DrafterX Offline
#130 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Laugh
delta1 Offline
#131 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 2:37 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
Cursing
DrafterX Offline
#132 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2019, 8:50 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Anxious
tailgater Offline
#133 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I have been a motherfkr in the past...
But I'm not likely to be a motherfker in the future. And I certainly am not one now.

Tail is still an all or nothing guy who doesn't understand nuance or the difference between meaning and decorum.

But that'll never change.


Nuance is my middle name.

You just haven't been paying attention.
tailgater Offline
#134 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
maybe she shoulda said, "Trump is a BAAAAAAAD Mutherfukker"....that better?

no it's not OK, but coarse public discourse has become normalized...and that is unfortunate...how do we regain civility?

obviously, pointing out hypocrisy on the other side is not bridging the divide...any better ideas?


I saw an interview of the congresswoman, the first female Muslim elected to the House. She tried to explain that her anger at Trump flows from his anti-Muslim rhetoric and Muslim travel ban...she seemed to be regretful for her use of profanity, but was unapologetic, ending the conversation by saying she is "passionate"


are we electing passionate people who feel so strongly about their political opponents that they resort to name-calling? I think we have...it's become tribal warfare...


She is a dolt.
Muslims were never banned.
She's either very dumb or she's a liar.
Passionate? BS. She's a vulgar obstructionist who will be embraced by leftist hypocrites and will continue to enjoy the free pass from the media.
victor809 Offline
#135 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 11:50 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Muslims were never banned. But not for lack of trying, only because we still have a few functional laws protecting discrimination.

Trump said he wanted a ban of all Muslims coming into the USA.
His voting base cheered when he yelled that at rallies, and voted for him because of it.

He fortunately accomplished significantly less in executive orders which have been referred to as Muslim travel bans (so she is accurate in her vernacular, just as the ACA was referred to as Obamacare). These are only not Muslim travel bans because trump was told he couldn't do that by various lawyers.

One can understand her desire to call him a motherfkr
DrafterX Offline
#136 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 11:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
victor809 wrote:


Trump said he wanted a ban of all Muslims coming into the USA.




Gotta throw the bullchit'flag on this one... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#137 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 11:59 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
You don't recall those rallies?
victor809 Offline
#138 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 12:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban

That super liberal Cato institute has a number of references.
DrafterX Offline
#139 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 12:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
He was just talking about the bad ones tho... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#140 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 1:27 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Muslims were never banned. But not for lack of trying, only because we still have a few functional laws protecting discrimination.

Trump said he wanted a ban of all Muslims coming into the USA.
His voting base cheered when he yelled that at rallies, and voted for him because of it.

He fortunately accomplished significantly less in executive orders which have been referred to as Muslim travel bans (so she is accurate in her vernacular, just as the ACA was referred to as Obamacare). These are only not Muslim travel bans because trump was told he couldn't do that by various lawyers.

One can understand her desire to call him a motherfkr



There was never a Muslim travel ban.

You'll cry about your "all or nothing" routine du juor.

But I read here that facts matter.

Fact: There was never a Trump initiated Muslim travel ban.

Too many people get so caught up in the media driven rhetoric that they end up believing it to be true.

Remember: Danny Ainge bit Tree Rollins...
DrafterX Offline
#141 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 1:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
If you repeat it enough times it becomes true.... Victor told 5 people.. and they told 5 people... and they told 5 people... and they told 5 people... and they told 5 people... and they told 5 people... so now it's true... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#142 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 2:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Reading comprehension.
I never said there was a Muslim travel ban.

Fking motherfking illiterates.
delta1 Offline
#143 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 3:56 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
tailgater wrote:
There was never a Muslim travel ban.

You'll cry about your "all or nothing" routine du juor.

But I read here that facts matter.

Fact: There was never a Trump initiated Muslim travel ban.

Too many people get so caught up in the media driven rhetoric that they end up believing it to be true.

Remember: Danny Ainge bit Tree Rollins...

the tail slicing machine is really revved up here...

words matter, tail...they are a way for the speaker to express his intent and for listeners to determine what is the intent of the speaker/writer...when people speak, their words matter and what they say have real meaning to whomever hears what is said...

The "Trump Travel Ban" is a phrase that was commonly used to describe something that Trump proposed. On many occasions while he was running for POTUS, and after taking office, he said "we have to stop ALL Muslims from coming in until we can find out what the hell is going on" which ultimately led to three versions of executive orders to restrict travel from 7 countries with predominantly Muslim populations...all three of which have been ruled unconstitutional by numerous courts, and may ultimately be decided by SCOTUS. Just because he tried cloaking this proposal in ways to pass constitutional muster, his intent was clear.

Maybe you agreed with him about that...but not everyone did...

This is like saying, "I want to ban all men named "tailgater" from this country until they can prove they can read"...and as POTUS you have the power to initiate that.

substitute "tail" for "Mexicans" "Muslims" and maybe you'll understand why the congresswoman said what she said...

although Trump didn't achieve that objective, his actions showed what his intent was....like a man who says he wants to cheat on his wife, and calls up a former girlfriend to arrange a date, but is stopped when his wife's bff finds out...
victor809 Offline
#144 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 4:06 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hang on...is tail the dude in that example? Or is he the dudes wife?

Or is tail the dudes wife's bff?
tailgater Offline
#145 Posted: Fri, Jan 18 2019, 11:30 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
the tail slicing machine is really revved up here...

words matter, tail...they are a way for the speaker to express his intent and for listeners to determine what is the intent of the speaker/writer...when people speak, their words matter and what they say have real meaning to whomever hears what is said...

The "Trump Travel Ban" is a phrase that was commonly used to describe something that Trump proposed. On many occasions while he was running for POTUS, and after taking office, he said "we have to stop ALL Muslims from coming in until we can find out what the hell is going on" which ultimately led to three versions of executive orders to restrict travel from 7 countries with predominantly Muslim populations...all three of which have been ruled unconstitutional by numerous courts, and may ultimately be decided by SCOTUS. Just because he tried cloaking this proposal in ways to pass constitutional muster, his intent was clear.

Maybe you agreed with him about that...but not everyone did...

This is like saying, "I want to ban all men named "tailgater" from this country until they can prove they can read"...and as POTUS you have the power to initiate that.

substitute "tail" for "Mexicans" "Muslims" and maybe you'll understand why the congresswoman said what she said...

although Trump didn't achieve that objective, his actions showed what his intent was....like a man who says he wants to cheat on his wife, and calls up a former girlfriend to arrange a date, but is stopped when his wife's bff finds out...




So tell us the dates that the Trump Muslim Travel Ban took effect.

Hint: Never.

You can guess what his intent was, but you listen too much to CNN and their race baiters.

Facts:
Countries on Trumps travel ban:
Syria
Iran
Yemen
Somalia
Libya
North Korea
Venezuela

Countries with the most Muslims
Indonesia
India
Pakastan
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Egypt
Iran
Turkey
Algeria
Morocco

Only ONE common country (Iran).

How ****king stupid does one have to be to believe the MEDIA DRIVEN idea that this was about the Muslim religion??

Who would try to ban Muslims by ignoring 9 of the top 10 countries?

Trumps words are unfiltered and often disgusting. But for YOU to tell us what he means when the FACTS don't bear it out (not even close) then you might need to reconsider.

Stop listening to victor and the MEDIA.
Be objective.
Look at the facts.

Stop making up your own truths. Or perpetuating the lies from the MEDIA.
DrafterX Offline
#146 Posted: Sat, Jan 19 2019, 10:21 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
But it was fine when Obama banned the Muslims... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#147 Posted: Sat, Jan 19 2019, 3:04 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
did he ban them or become one?
this place sure is confusing
DrafterX Offline
#148 Posted: Sat, Jan 19 2019, 3:37 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Obama was born one but he tried to hide it... I heard he ate a puppy-dog once... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#149 Posted: Sat, Jan 19 2019, 4:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
thanks.
I feel better knowing the truth!
rfenst Offline
#150 Posted: Sat, Jan 19 2019, 4:20 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
LOL.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Back to Top