Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#1452 Jun 14 2018 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I called someone money once, and they changed.
That pun is loonie.
Careful, there might be a tariff on that one.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1453 Jun 14 2018 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,322 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I called someone money once, and they changed.
That pun is loonie.
Careful, there might be a tariff on that one.


So you're saying... there's a new tariff in town.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1454 Jun 14 2018 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Er. Except for the already mentioned Howard Cosell.
You mean the guy who got called out on it and tried to pretend he didn't remember even calling a black guy a monkey and when that didn't work tried to play it off as something he called everyone, including his grandkids? Good luck working that defense.


That is pretty much the universally accepted version of what actually happened. Well, except he didn't "try to pretend he didn't remember". That's your assumption. Heaven forbid that someone who honestly doesn't see a racial connotation in calling someone "monkey" wouldn't think anything of doing it, and would therefore not remember having done it after the fact. Oh and he also didn't "try to play it off as something he called everyone, including his grandkids". Stop putting your own assumptions into the motivations of others.

He did claim this was the case. Period. And that's backed up by a recording of him using the same term to describe a white football player years earlier. I'm pretty sure we don't have recordings of him talking to and about his grandkids, but why the heck not take him at his word? Nope. Let's just assume it's all a lie.

Cart leading the horse much?

Every single thing about the Cosell incident suggests that he honestly had no clue that anyone would take offense at it and was unaware of the use of the term as a racial slur. Which, having grown up during that time period, I can believe because I myself was unaware of it being a slur back then too. Heck. When we were kids our parents gave us all nicknames. My brother's was "monkey". Why? Because that's what you called someone who jumped around a lot and was hard to get a hold of (trust me, he was a handful when he was a little kid). Similarly, an "ape" was someone who was big and strong (and maybe broke stuff a bit too much). We never put any racial implication on those terms at all back then, and had no clue that others did.


My point is that it's a relatively recent thing (within my lifetime at least) that many white people had to learn that certain terms that they had no clue were used in a racial context, and which they'd grown up using without intending any racial context at all, where used by some others in such a manner, and thus were "off limits" to use when referring to someone of a specific race. This was the start of the PC era, and Cosell was one of the first to be hit with this.

You're re-writing history to claim otherwise. Now none of this excuses Roseanne's statement. She should have known better given the time period in question. But, as I said earlier, this leads us more to the idea that she's a blithering idiot than that she's a racist.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1455 Jun 15 2018 at 2:08 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
I wish Varus was still around. I so want to see him freak on Trump saluting a NK General like he did when Obama had his treasonous bow to Japan's Emperor.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1456 Jun 15 2018 at 5:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, Gbaji had conniptions over it, citing his extensive experience of a couple business trips in the Far East. He also said that the complete lack of mention of the incident in the Japanese press was proof that they were deeply offended and embarrassed because they'd be too polite to mention how offended and embarrassed they were.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1457 Jun 15 2018 at 9:26 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,614 posts
Well, it's not like trump was holding a coffee when he saluted the foreign general.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1458 Jun 15 2018 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,525 posts
gbaji wrote:
why the heck not take him at his word?
Your argument is now that what he said couldn't possibly be racist because he said it wasn't? By the way, where was this "take him at his word" attitude during the whole birther thing? How about with scientists and journalists? Why do you insist they're all liars yet it can't be racist because they're just too gosh-darned honest?

Not particularly interested in the answer to the "you" question, but if you're going to waste time on it be sure to remind us of just how much of a skeptic you are.
gbaji wrote:
I can believe because I myself was unaware of it being a slur back then too.
That's a shame, because two of myselves was completely aware of it being a slur since the stone age so that means 2 personal anecdotes is more valid than one. And my personal anecdote must be trustworthy, after all "why the heck not take my word for it?"
gbaji wrote:
My point is that it's a relatively recent thing (within my lifetime at least) that many white people had to learn that certain terms that they had no clue were used in a racial context
It's only a relatively recent thing in your lifetime if you're hundreds of years old, which I guess explains your personal policies pretty well.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I so want to see him freak on saluting a NK General like he did when Obama had his treasonous bow to Japan's Emperor.
I like how he wandered into the G7 and complained about Russia not being around. Brilliant strategy.

Edited, Jun 15th 2018 12:35pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1459 Jun 15 2018 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,722 posts
He's taking Porch Monkey back!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1460 Jun 15 2018 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
Personally, I'd like to thank Trump for making the US the first country to ever consider Canada a big enough threat to be labeled as a national security risk. We're fearsome, so happy to be finally recognized as so!

Edited, Jun 15th 2018 1:23pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1461 Jun 15 2018 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,525 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Personally, I'd like to thank for making the US the first country to ever consider Canada a big enough threat to be labeled as a national security risk.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1462 Jun 15 2018 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Both North Korea AND Canada finally get recognized on the world stage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1463 Jun 15 2018 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,722 posts
It's okay to lie, as long as your lies are to the New York Times.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1464 Jun 15 2018 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, Gbaji had conniptions over it, citing his extensive experience of a couple business trips in the Far East.


You and I apparently have vastly different definitions of conniption. It's not like I raised the issue, or made a big deal of it. But when others raised it, and made a point of defending Obama's choice of bow, I presented my own opinion of it. I'll also point out that it was not about whether he bowed at all, but the nature of the bow itself. A bow of respect and a bow of subservience are two different things, and the one he used was the latter.

Are you saying that Trump's salute was done incorrectly? Was it an symbol of subservience? No. The two are not comparable. The General saluted Trump. Trump returned the salute. In that case, it's a matter of being polite. When you salute first, you are recognizing the other person as being of higher rank and deserving of respect. When you salute back you are acknowledging the first salute, and showing respect back.

He probably should not have done so, purely because of knuckleheads in the media and elsewhere (like you guys) who will take the salute out of context and make it out to look like he's saluting the general un-prompted, which would be a sign of recognizing the general as a superior. You know, like bowing deeply while looking down at the ground does. So good job being predictable, I guess?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1465 Jun 15 2018 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
why the heck not take him at his word?
Your argument is now that what he said couldn't possibly be racist because he said it wasn't?


More strawman. "couldn't possibly be" is not the same as "probably isn't". There's no evidence in the entire long public history of the man that he was a racist, so when presented with possible explanations as to why he made the "monkey" statement, doesn't it make much more sense to go with one that explains it, he claims is the truth, and which actually matches with the man's behavior for his entire life? Nope. Let's just toss that out and what? Assume he's been this secret black hating racist his entire life, and managed to hide it perfectly for so long, despite having very close relationships with a number of black athletes, only to... um... forget this and accidentally let spill his "true feelings about black people on national TV"?

That's a pretty ridiculous assumption to go to. Sorry. I'm going to go with not being nutjob crazy on this one. You're free to stay in crazyland if you wish though.

Quote:
By the way, where was this "take him at his word" attitude during the whole birther thing?


Sigh. That was not about taking someone at their word. It was entirely about a legal requirement to hold an office. If someone tells me that they like the color blue, I'll take their word for it. If they tell me that they are a licensed surgeon, I'm probably going to want to see that license displayed in their office before letting them do surgery on me.

Quote:
How about with scientists and journalists? Why do you insist they're all liars yet it can't be racist because they're just too gosh-darned honest?


Huh? I require proof of evidence in situations where such things are both available and relevant to the subject at hand. I get that you seem to want to veer into absolutist language when it suits you, but in the real world, most of us can tell when something makes sense, and when it doesn't. What you're doing right now? Doesn't make sense.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
My point is that it's a relatively recent thing (within my lifetime at least) that many white people had to learn that certain terms that they had no clue were used in a racial context
It's only a relatively recent thing in your lifetime if you're hundreds of years old, which I guess explains your personal policies pretty well.


What's funny is that you cling to this, despite numerous examples of people in my generation and the one just preceding mine, making statements back in the 60s and 70s which today we'd consider horribly bigoted. I guess everyone was just racist back then right? Or maybe... just maybe.. they weren't. Maybe our interpretation of the words themselves has changed over time? Nah! That can't be it. After all, we all know that the meaning of words, especially slang words, never ever changes. Right?


You can't even entertain the possibility that some people back then were honestly and innocently unaware that in some parts of the country, the terms that meant something completely non-racist or bigoted to them, meant something completely offensive? And that as we moved into the TV age, and media became more national, they gradually became more aware on that national scale how their words might be interpreted, and in some cases, this only happened when something like the Cosell incident became a huge public issue. Seriously? You're that unaware of how societies learn and grown and change over time? You think there's an information fairy that just magically sprinkles knowledge to everyone in the world?

Again. That's insane. The evidence of just how wrong that thinking is is present all around you. You just refuse to see it in preference to just broadly assuming anyone who doesn't toe the current PC rules must be a bigot. Um... What if people don't know the rules? Ever consider that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1466 Jun 15 2018 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,985 posts
Gbaji wrote:
He probably should not have done so, purely because of knuckleheads in the media and elsewhere (like you guys) who will take the salute out of context and make it out to look like he's saluting the general un-prompted, which would be a sign of recognizing the general as a superior.

People aren't mocking Trump for saluting. People are mocking conservatives for making a a giant fuss about Obama bowing and then doing a complete 180 when Trump does an exactly comparable act.

This consistently happens and the conservative response is always the same. Conservatives declare some trivial gesture performed by a Democrat to bring to be a huge fuss, people tell conservatives it's no big deal, eventually a conservative does equivalent trivial gesture, people mock conservatives for inconsistently not making a fuss about the exact same thing, and then conservatives reframe it in their mind as people mocking the trivial gesture rather than their glaring hypocrisy.
#1467 Jun 15 2018 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
It's okay to lie, as long as your lies are to the New York Times.


But it's ok to lie if you are the New York Times apparently. Read the linked article carefully. It misrepresents what Trump Jr actually said:

NYT wrote:
n the first statement on the meeting, first published by The New York Times, the president’s son said the group was there to discuss adoption policy.


In the link in that very sentence, this is what was actually said:

Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.


He said this is what was "primarily discussed", which was actually correct. He did not say why he was there in the first place. The Times just kinda made that up. He never said they "were there to discuss adoption policy", only that they "primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children". The whole point is that what was actually discussed and why they had the meeting in the first place were two different things. And it's because of that difference that they cut off the meeting. They were there to discuss possible dirt on Clinton, but the person they met with didn't have any and had just used it as a ruse to discuss adoption.

So both statements by Trump Jr were true. The NYT just chose to misstate one of them to make it seem like a lie. Sure, he didn't advertise the purpose of the meeting, but so what? He's not required to do that. His statement about the content of the meeting was true. Deal with it. Not a single thing in the two quotes from Trump Jr in the linked article are actually contradictory. The first one just omits some details is all. Now you're free to say that was misleading of him, and it certainly was. But not a lie.


And I think it's pretty freaking hypocritical to claim some wrongdoing for members of Trump's campaign to take a meeting from a Russian claiming to have evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Clinton Campaign, when the Clinton campaign did the exact same thing. Except they didn't just choose to meet with someone who came along out of the blue claiming to have information, they actually hired a foreign intelligence operative to go find Russian and Ukrainian sources who would make up dirt about Trump, and the proceeded to launder that through the media and the FBI.

Yeah. One of those is taking a freaking meeting when presented with it (and dropping the issue when it turned out to be bogus). The other is premeditated dirt creation to go after a political opponent, and an active effort to use said dirt no matter how bogus it was. So no, I don't think the Democrats have a leg to stand on here.

What do they say about people living in glass houses?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1468 Jun 15 2018 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Allegory wrote:
People aren't mocking Trump for saluting. People are mocking conservatives for making a a giant fuss about Obama bowing and then doing a complete 180 when Trump does an exactly comparable act.


It's not an exactly comparable act. I just wrote why they are not exactly comparable. This is not about conservatives doing a 180 on anything. We can tell the difference between a proper sign of respect and a sign of subservience. Again, the issue was not that Obama bowed, but that the form of bow he used was completely wrong.

If your argument was that Trumps form when saluting was wrong, you'd have a comparable act. Is that what anyone is claiming? No. Then it's not a comparable act. Not sure why this is complicated for some people to get.

Quote:
This consistently happens and the conservative response is always the same. Conservatives declare some trivial gesture performed by a Democrat to bring to be a huge fuss, people tell conservatives it's no big deal, eventually a conservative does equivalent trivial gesture, people mock conservatives for inconsistently not making a fuss about the exact same thing, and then conservatives reframe it in their mind as people mocking the trivial gesture rather than their glaring hypocrisy.


Again. It's not a comparable gesture. I get that you want to frame this purely in terms of "something I can say against him, versus something they say against the other him", as though this is all balanced or something. But that's simply not the case. Conservatives didn't care that Obama bowed. They were worried about the message sent by the form of the bow he used, and even more than that what it indicated about Obama's own mindset. And it wasn't just in a vacuum. Conservative were also worried about what they labeled as Obama's "apology tour", where he seemed to spend his first major foreign trip basically going from country to county apologizing for the US being such a horrible country. The bow was just one more example of Obama saying and doing things that showed that he didn't view the country he was supposed to be the lead representative of in much high regard.

Trump returning a salute to a NK general doesn't do that. It's therefore not a problem that he did that. That's why we don't see the two in anything remotely comparable terms. No one thinks Trump has a problem putting US interests first. He's been pretty freaking strong on this, in fact. So much so that many on the left are terrified that he'll push too hard, get us into a trade war, maybe a real war, etc, with all his pro-US rhetoric. So no one is going to interpret that salute as an indication that Trump view himself or the US as "less than" NK. That's the point. Obama's bow, in the context of his platform and other foreign actions, fueled the idea that he did see the US as "less than" other countries, and should be subservient to them, and put their interests at least as high the US, if not higher.

And yeah. That's something to be concerned about with your primary representative to other countries (and commander in chief). It signals weakness. It gives other countries an excuse to move on you, take advantage of you, and otherwise do things they might not have if given other signals. And frankly, given the list of things that happened on the foreign policy arena during Obama's watch, there's good evidence that signal was received loud and clear, by Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, the Taliban, Al Queda, groups of Islamic extremists looking for form an Islamic State, etc.

So no. Not comparable. Not even close to comparable. You're missing the forest for the trees if you think so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1469 Jun 15 2018 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Are you saying that Trump's salute was done incorrectly? Was it an symbol of subservience? No. The two are not comparable. The General saluted Trump. Trump returned the salute. In that case, it's a matter of being polite. When you salute first, you are recognizing the other person as being of higher rank and deserving of respect. When you salute back you are acknowledging the first salute, and showing respect back.

Nah. It's US protocol for the president not to salute foreign military officers. And it's military protocol to return a salute from a friendly or allied foreign officer.

I know you're GOP- bound to defend this but you're just wrong. Trump was wrong. He did it wrong. He screwed up diplomatic protocol and you'll throw temper tantrums about Obama doing so but spin a thousand reasons why this time doesn't count. It's cool; no one expects different from you, just fun to point it out. The photo of the salute is hilarious if only for the "Uh, what the fuck is he doing?" look on Kim's face.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1470 Jun 16 2018 at 12:55 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,571 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
He's taking Porch Monkey back!

Jophiel wrote:
The photo of the salute is hilarious if only for the "Uh, what the fuck is he doing?" look on Kim's face.
The DPRK suit just right of Un is smiling.


Likely got executed for that, poor little guy.Smiley: frown
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#1471 Jun 21 2018 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you saying that Trump's salute was done incorrectly? Was it an symbol of subservience? No. The two are not comparable. The General saluted Trump. Trump returned the salute. In that case, it's a matter of being polite. When you salute first, you are recognizing the other person as being of higher rank and deserving of respect. When you salute back you are acknowledging the first salute, and showing respect back.

Nah. It's US protocol for the president not to salute foreign military officers.


There is no protocol for the president with regard to saluting though. Period.

Quote:
And it's military protocol to return a salute from a friendly or allied foreign officer.


It's against military protocol to salute, period, when not wearing a uniform. Which includes all US presidents. Until Reagan decided to do so, and so presidents have saluted military officers since then, pretty much as the whim takes them. Trying to apply strict military saluting protocol to presidents is an exercise in futility.

Quote:
I know you're GOP- bound to defend this but you're just wrong.


You're equally DEM-bound to attack it. So... what?

Quote:
Trump was wrong. He did it wrong.


That's your opinion. I disagree. It's not a huge deal at all either way.

Quote:
He screwed up diplomatic protocol and you'll throw temper tantrums about Obama doing so but spin a thousand reasons why this time doesn't count.


Um... I haven't done that. What I have done is respond to the peanut gallery throwing their own temper tantrums about how conservatives criticized Obama for bowing so why not when Trump salutes, etc, etc, etc. I made zero comparison to Obama. You guys did that. Not me. To me, the two events are utterly unrelated.

Trump returned a salute. What was he supposed to do? Just stand there with his hand out while this general stood at attention and saluted? How long was he supposed to do that, awkwardly holding his hand out while this general was saluting him? At the end of the day, this was a diplomatic meeting, so he was being... diplomatic. You can sit there and scream about "OMG! Diplomatic protocol!!!" (there isn't any in this case), "Military protocol!!!" (there also isn't any in this case either), and whine and cry, but at the end of the day, it's a non-event for everyone who isn't going out of their way to make a big deal about it. It had absolutely zero effect on the meetings, discussions, agreements, etc.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1472 Jun 21 2018 at 10:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What was he supposed to do? Let the guy salute and then shake his hand.

Despite your claims, there is a protocol, Trump was briefed on it, but Trump's gonna Trump so he either intentionally ignored it or, more likely, it just flew out of his head the moment he saw something shiny.
CNN wrote:
A US official told CNN that Trump was briefed on protocol, which is to not salute military officers from other countries.
Washington Post wrote:
The awkward moment raised some eyebrows because the U.S. and North Korea technically are still at war.

“I have never seen an American president salute an officer of another military, let alone a military that acts as a brutal enforcer of human slavery and awful prison camps in a gulag across its nation,” said James Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral who served as the top NATO commander. “It was a mistake.”


The funny thing is that I don't even really care about it (and wasn't the first to bring it up) but it is amusing to watch you keep frantically spinning that this is way different. Well, it is different but only because you were hysterical that Obama leaned a couple degrees off for your liking but don't care that Trump was saluting a general from a hostile nation purely because he didn't know better. But, sure, it's totes a Dem thing Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1473 Jun 22 2018 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,525 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm going to go with not being nutjob crazy on this one.
Your going with what makes you feel better doesn't actually mean anything.
gbaji wrote:
You're free to stay in crazyland if you wish though.
Reality doesn't have to make sense or make me feel better to continue being reality. You're free to live in your little safe space bubble though. In fact, I kind of insist on it. That way you never actually affect the real world.
gbaji wrote:
I require proof of evidence in situations where such things are both available and relevant to the subject at hand.
If you're going to bullshit, at least try to make it believable? You're more than happy with speculation and guesswork.
gbaji wrote:
What's funny is that you cling to this, despite numerous examples of people in my generation and the one just preceding mine, making statements back in the 60s and 70s which today we'd consider horribly bigoted.
Just because you were openly racist in the 60s and 70s doesn't mean you're not now just because you say you're not, and it also doesn't mean it wasn't racist just because you were ignorant of the facts.
gbaji wrote:
The evidence of just how wrong that thinking is is present all around you.
Someone doing racist things just saying it wasn't racist isn't actually evidence. Fun how in this same post you say you require evidence, and then your tangent provides none other than "just take their word for it!"
gbaji wrote:
You think there's an information fairy that just magically sprinkles knowledge to everyone in the world?
If there is they must hate you with how out of the way they go to avoid giving you any.
gbaji wrote:
What was he supposed to do? Just stand there with his hand out while this general stood at attention and saluted?
You can't insist there isn't protocol and then insist he had no choice. It wouldn't have been a long wait anyway, since the General had already lowered his hand to shake before 45 raised his to salute.
gbaji wrote:
It's against military protocol to salute, period, when not wearing a uniform.
No it isn't. Period.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1475 Jun 25 2018 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,525 posts
Finally a policy from this administration I can actually agree with. 45 says that all illegal invaders should be deported immediately with no judges or court cases, so good luck white people.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1476 Jun 25 2018 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump decides to blunder into a trade war, EU raises tariffs in retaliation, Harley-Davidson to cut staff and operations in the US and shift production of approximately 40,000 bikes annually to be sold in the EU to Europe to avoid tariffs.

Who's tired of all this winning yet?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT