Things/Events you can't get past with him - Donald Trump Discussion

what scam? the Dictator Joe scam that is ruining america?

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (769) 17 days ago

The scam charity that got shut down in 2018.

reply

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Trump Foundation has done great work and given away lots of money, both mine and others, to great charities over the years - with me taking NO fees, rent, salaries etc. Now, as usual, I am getting slammed by Cuomo and the Dems in a long running civil lawsuit started by.....

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13742) 17 days ago

you cant possibly be citing something that came out of Trumps mouth as evidence?

reply

[–] JoWilli (15917) 17 days ago

its better than what that other guy says.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

For me, it's that he doesn't actively hate me and everything I believe in, with a fiery passion,

the way the Left does.

Plenty of valid complaints about Trump, but at least he isn't looking to use the power of the state to try to destroy me and everything I hold dear.

I just can't get past that. Hard to care about the little things when that is the stakes.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

He hates me and everything I believe in with a fiery passion. That alone makes me not able to vote for a scumbag like that.

I have no compassion for the right because they have none for me or mine.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

I've seen no indication that Trump hates you or everything you believe in.

Name one thing to support that claim.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

He supports deporting illegal immigrants. They are part of my group and some of my closest friends. One actually helped me when I was in an accident and saved my life. Trump is against them and my interests.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

You said hate. There is nothing about wanting to enforce the law and deport illegals that indicates hate of the illegals or you.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Yeah there is. It means my closest and dear friend would be deported back to his country and his family to live a worse life on the country he gets deported to. I owe that man my life for saving me after my accident. Off that alone I can't vote for Trump I'm sorry.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

YOur friend is here in violation of the law. Deporting him is not an act of hate, but simply a matter of doing the right thing/enforcing the law.

That is makes you sad, is not HATE on Donald Trump's part.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

It's also illegal to smoke weed. I'm not going to call the police on my neighbors that smoke it to ruin their lives. Laws are not always just and moral. Laws don't come before morality in my book.

It is hate when you are using the law for nefarious reasons. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Also if we are going to say laws are just and moral then there is no anti white discrimination like you claimed. I mean after all the law is the law. It is perfectly just and fair. Therefore affirmative action is perfectly fine.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

The law on immigration is just and moral. Your friend should be deported.

It is not hate to say that. We Americans have a nice country here and we have the RIGHT to decide who to invite in and who to NOT invite in.

Trump does not hate you.

ON the other hand, you lefties DO hate me. Your policies are designed to hurt me and mine for no good reason.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

No it isn't just and moral. If we are going by the law then it discriminating against whites it is not an issue.

Nope you have no right to do that and I will see to it.

Trump does hate us.

Don't ever expect me to betray my friend like that. Trump won't be getting my vote understand me? I owe that friend my life i won't t ever betray him like that.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. THank you for admitting to anti-white discrimination. The law against illegal immigration is just and moral.

2. I do have the right.

3. Trump does not hate you.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Nope I said if we are going by the law then that is just and moral. I was showing how the law and morality don't always coincide. Your twisting of words is noted and dismissed. So is the law always just and fair?

Nope you don't.

He does hate me.

I would take a bullet for my friend.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. i'm not twisting words, I just pointing out the implications of your arguments. Even if you claim it is just and moral, you are admitting anti-white discrimination.

2. Yes, I do.

3. No, he doesn't. You are just...saying shit without any... reason or truth behind it. Empty words from a... you.

4. That's nice. You are committed to your friend. THat does not make anything else you said here, make sense.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Never denied it lol. So is the law always just and moral?

Nope you don't. I will do everything in my power to stop you. I will be standing between you and the person who saved my life.

He does hate me yes.

It does. So I won't be voting for Trump under any circumstances you understand me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. I said one law was just and moral. THis bit that thus all laws are thus just and moral, is just you.

2. That is me possibly not having the POWER. You were claiming I did not have the right.

3 You've done nothing to support that claim. Nothing.

4. NO, it's doesn't. You say shit, that doesn't make sense.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

And in this case I don't think the law is just and moral. See like you I can disagree with the law also. See how that works?

You don't have the right. I will do everything I can to stop you also.

I have wrong. Trump has made some nasty remarks about immigrants and he doesn't hate them? Yeah my ass!

Know this I won't be voting for Trump. Don't you ever tell me who to vote for again you understand me? You vote for who you want and I will vote for who I want. Sound good?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. Americans have the Right of National Soverighty that give us the RIGHT to decide who to invite into our country or not. Your denial is based on nothing but your feelings.

2. I do have the right as an AMERICAN.

3. He said something you consider nasty? That is what you got to support your claim of hate? Pretty weak shit.

4. Nice non sequitur.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Nope not on my watch. My friend comes before all that. You can shove that right up your ass, I couldn't care less. Funny you have nothing but feelings on the drug war and you still support it. All based off your feelings.

Nope you don't. I will see to it you don't get that right also.

Nah it shows he hates me and mine.

Good I'm glad we got that straight prick.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. Your hostility to Americans is noted. You deny that we have the same rights as every other nation.

2. I already have that right. It is god given. You and your dem allies might prevent me from exersizing it, but that just makes you an oppressor.

3. Dude. That is weak ass shit.

4. YOu're the bad guy here, denying the rights of your fellow Americans.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

You can note what you want. You have hostility towards America by supporting the drug war.

Nope not so long as we get your politicians out of of there. You won't be exercising it and I will laugh when you can't.

Nope it's strong.

You do that by supporting the drug war.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. You are denying your fellow Americans have the same rights as every other nation.

2. SO, you oppose the very idea of human rights? Wow. I mean, I knew that was were you lefties were coming from but normally you lie more.

3. He said something? That's what you got? LOL.

4. Dude. THe drug war is a difference of opinion on policy. YOU are denying us citiznes our human rights.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

I would much rather be loyal to my friend than a person like you. You think I care about you after what you have shown to be? You wouldn't do half of what my friend has done for anyone.

It's ok. You violate human rights by supporting the drug war. So if you can do it we are free to as well.

And what he supports. You forget that?

No the drug war violates human rights. Immigrants I trust over you.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. I am pro human rights, you are anti.

2. People do not have a right to drugs. They do have the right of national soveignty.

3. He supports enforcing our democratically enacted immigration laws. That this makes you sad does not justify your delusional shit talk.

4. YOu are shit talking to defend your anti-American loyalties.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Not when you support the drug war no. You are contradicting yourself.

Yet you attempted to say that prohibition of alcohol was good. People have a right to drink if they please. So should alcohol be illegal also?

Wait I thought we are a republic not a democracy? That's what you conservatives always say. I will stand between anyone who tries to deport my friend. Bring it on!

No I just can see your hypocrisy.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1 You have explicitly denied that Americans have normal human rights.

2. Your failure to undersand...anything, is sad.

3. Democratically enacted by our elected representatives. Your willingness to fight against America is not somethign to be proud of. It is treason.

4. You are shit talking to defend your anti-Americanism.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

So have you by supporting the drug war.

I understand well.

Ah I knew the treason would come out. Do something about it then.

I'm tired of people like you. If a Democrat gets back in go ahead and leave the country.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. People do not have a right to crack.

2. NO, you don't.

3. ok.

4. People like me? You mean AMERICANS?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

So you support the drug war got it.

Yes I do.

Ok.

What do you think I mean?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. Your desire to see crack legal, is not based on rights, but you being fucked up.

2. You don't understand anything.

3. Look forward to it.

4. I think you mean Americans who are not pussies enough to put up with having their rights violated and taken away by anti-American traitors.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Your support of the drug war destroys your credibility.

I understand more than you.

Ok.

You think telling someone to kill themselves is ballsy. That's all I've got to say.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. Said the guy that supports legal crack.

2. YOu don't get the concept of cost benfit analysis.

3. Look forward to it.

4. YOu've stated your willingness t fight against America in defense of your illegal friend. I won't call that ballsy, because I think that you think it can never happen. But it is...treasonous.

reply

[–] Pete314 (2490) 15 days ago

Hell, what an idiot. If he does not like the law he should leave the country. 🙄

reply

[–] itsbananas2024 (58) 10 days ago

"you hate america becuase of drug-war".

This dude is devolving into keelia territory.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 10 days ago

Yeah, he just says the stupiest shit and thinks that that means something.

reply

[–] BKB (6661) 17 days ago

Oh for Christ sake, Trump doesn't hate you or anyone except for the liberal media and probably the Cast of The VIEW and who could blame him?? 🤔

reply

[–] Yatzo (1426) 17 days ago

Trump hates anyone who disagrees with his 40,000 lies

reply

[–] Marty1968 (299) 8 days ago

…and Rosie O’Donnell 😂

reply

[–] chilone (17357) 9 days ago

That's all fun and everything but how about the illegals who have taken countless lives? How would you feel if an illegal killed one of your loved one?. Of course not all illegals break the law (other than coming here in violation of the law), but the law is there for reasons, such keeping criminals out.

reply

[–] SweetTooth43 (1811) 17 days ago

And they're here illegally. What's your argument?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

So is the law always just and fair? The law is the law without any questions or disagreements?

reply

[–] tvfan (9192) 17 days ago

Nevertheless; sometimes there are good reasons for those laws to be in place.

Look at all the negative consequences of breaking those immigration laws in the USA and in other countries.

And yes, sometimes they seem unfair which is why there are proper ways to go about them.

And yes, people do question and disagree with some laws which is why changes and amendments are made.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4255) 17 days ago

You only think he doesn't hate you. He hates everyone, unless they are giving him something.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

I am giving him something, my vote(s) and my political support.

And I don't really see him as hateful. He's more a pragmatic get the job done and then brag abouot it to show how wonderful he is, kind of guy.

Not really a hater.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

You support the drug war. The drug war has been a gigantic failure. You also support banning alcohol despite the history of that bring on record.

I understand it perfectly.

So do I.

You said telling someone to kill themselves was ballsy... Nothing more to say.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 17 days ago

1. We have policy disagreements. You deny me and mine our basic human rights. That is not the same. You are the bad guy here.

2. I was trying to get you to understand the concept of cost benefit analysis. That I failed, is a serious problem with YOU.

3. I'm sure you are. You clearly hate me and mine. You are full of hate and rage, seemingly based on the fact that people who disagree with you have the right to speak out on issues and point out how and why you are wrong.

4. Dude. You have admitted that you want to deprive me of my rights and look forward to when you can do so with violence. You are the bad guy here, not me.

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 17 days ago

You support a drug war policy that has been failing for forty years. Nobody should take you seriously. Don't you think it's bad to support a policy that has failed for over forty years?

If somebody persists in doing something that is shown to be a failure for forty years, while people died and communities were destroyed in that time, people would think you need to be committed at best. And at worst that you were a sociopath that doesn't actually care about other people in any way. And when you say "me and mine" it's pretty obvious to everyone here that "me and mine" is just what you call your selfish sense of well being and false sense of superiority.

The drug war policy you support has done more damage to the US and its citizens than immigration ever has. Immigration has done good things. The drug war never has yet it is supported by people like you who are content with at least one war without end where you can see yourself as the perpetual good guy and Americans who are subject to the failed policy are just the enemy you don't need to have enough compassion for to acknowledge that the drug war fails everybody.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Round of applause! Perfectly said and stated Martoto. Thank you.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

If you want to pretend that supporting a policy that has had bi-partisan support... for...generations is... fringe or something, you go right ahead.

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 16 days ago

I never said one thing about it being "fringe". It has failed for forty years. Hiding behind the endorsement of two parties, neither of which you seem to support, to excuse tolerating forty years of abject failure is pathetic and unAmerican. You prefer the cost and the loss of the failed drug war to the net gains of immigration.

And it's clear that you don't genuinely care about bipartisanship since you have already stated you would trust only what Donald tells you if both parties disagreed with him.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

You are trying to muddy the waters becasue you cannot make a real case for your policyy position.

AND my point stands. YOu are opposing my human rights.

Discussing pros and cons of an issue when your actual position is that I don't have the RIGHT to hold a policy position, is....

nonsense.

This conflict between US, is you being against my human rights and wanting to deprve me of them, and me wanting them.

It is also worth noting that your side of this debate has set policy, in violation of our laws and the wishes of our people, for several generations.

That is a serious problem, a real conflict of interests.

HOw far are you willing to go to continue to deprive me of my human rights?

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 16 days ago

I've said nothing about your rights. I've denounced your hypocrisy and fecklessness in supporting a policy that has failed for 40 years. It's your right to be an idiot.

That's the problem with half the world. They think, or claim, that the cold light of truth exposing their craptitude is an infringement on their rights. You have no right to have your bullshit arguments go unchallenged.

Can't handle criticism. Can't handle facts. Pathetic, lame, snowflake. Go find a snow globe to live in. Preserved in a fantasy world.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Might have confused you with the other lefty. THat's on you for jumping in.

2. Mmm, certainly NOT what is going on here, so, read the thread and get on track before making comments.

3. lol. You are either completely ignorant of the thread or shit talking.

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 16 days ago

You made a mistake and it's on me? Another example of what's wrong with this world. Can't accept responsibility for your own failure. The conservatives are the ones who complain about it constantly and it's clear that it's nothing but projection of their own inherent lack of accountability.

Almost pitiful.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

Yeah, not feeling very charitable towards lefties today. Sorry.

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 16 days ago

When are you charitable and with whom? The children of people forced to have them and can't afford to raise them in a decent standard of living or afford healthcare?

Don't bother answering. We know that you aren't charitable to anyone at any time. Except Donald at all times.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

To people that are not extremely hostile and hateful to me.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

I reserve the right to be hateful to scumbags who endorsed baseless claims about me being a pedophile and suggested I should kill myself.

Why the fuck I should I ever afford you any charity or tolerance again?

And I know you're slow on the uptake, but I am not /u/Martoto incase you confuse me with them.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

You were a hateful and hostile to me BEFORE i treated you with the contempt that you deserve.

So, whatever your reason is, it is not that.

It is also worth noting that I was responding to a question from martoto about MY charity, not asking for anything from you, so you little hissy fit is just you playing with yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

>You were a hateful and hostile to me BEFORE i treated you with the contempt that you deserve.

I never at any point launched unfounded accusations like that at you. Nor told you to kill yourself. That was you. That behaviour is yours and yours alone. You are a cowardly little bitch unable to own your own nasty behaviour. Scumbag.

And I'll await examples of these "hateful" and "hostile" things I supposedly did to you.

>It is also worth noting that I was responding to a question from martoto about MY charity, not asking for anything from you, so you little hissy fit is just you playing with yourself.

I don't give a fuck. I'll reply to who I want, where I want, whenever I want.

This is a forum with few rules. I don't answer to you. I know you wish you could control other people's lives, but you have no power. You can shove your desire to control others up your ass.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

LOL. i didn't say you COULDN'T reply, I was just pointing out that your reply was based on a very retarded misunderstanding on your part.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

No, you didn't. But given your comments its clear that you wish to prevent me from doing so.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

I wish that you would stop being such a piece of shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

I won't take lectures on being "such a piece of shit" from someone who openly justifies libellous accusations against other people and who calls for them to kill themselves.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

You claimed to know what I wished for.

I merely corrected you and told you what I ACTUALLY wish for.

Hardly a lecture.

Try to be less of a shit talker. That would be step one on you being such a piece of shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

You refuse to elaborate. I am left to fill in the blanks.

And the fact that you endorsed libellous accusations against me and told me to kill myself has nothing to do with "what you wished for". These are things you specifically said.

>Try to be less of a shit talker. That would be step one on you being such a piece of shit.

Go cry yourself to bed, princess. I'm sorry you're such a sensitive little soul that you take being criticised as "shit talking" and use that as justification to be a truly vile piece of shit, as if you have zero self-control. I can actually point to your nasty, hateful behaviour. You are unable to point to mine.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

You call me "sensitive" while you are attacking me at the same time, for both "refusing to eleborate" AND for "lecturing you"?

LOL. You are really failing with the less shit talk task I set you. LOL.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

>You call me "sensitive" while you are attacking me at the same time, for both "refusing to eleborate" AND for "lecturing you"?

I'm not offended by you attempting to lecture, or refusing to elaborate. Just noting your inability. You are apparently so hurt by my behaviour that you have to resort to launching hateful accusations against me.

I'm so appalling, so odious yet you somehow just can't put me on ignore. Why is this?

>LOL. You are really failing with the less shit talk task I set you. LOL.

"Shit talk" defined by you as "Disagreeing with Corbell on anything".

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

i merely pointed out the absurdity of how you were whining.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

I don't cry about you being able to post. You do cry about me being able to post.

So why not block me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

Well, I have actual real things to say, so, we are not equivalent in any way.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

No reason to believe this spin.

And you didn't answer my question: So why not block me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

Yeah, I've noticed that lefties can't handle multiple points at once. The more left that they are, the less they can think.

So, if you ask multiple points or ask multple questions, I don't want the thread to immediately just fall apart with the lefty in question being confused. That tis why I clearly label my points by number, to try to help stupid lefties follow simple points.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

>Yeah, I've noticed that lefties can't handle multiple points at once. The more left that they are, the less they can think.

What the fuck are you on about? All I'm hearing here is your smug prejudice and scorn reserved solely for left-wingers. You'd cry like a little bitch if I was to say the same about right-wingers.

>So, if you ask multiple points or ask multple questions, I don't want the thread to immediately just fall apart with the lefty in question being confused. That tis why I clearly label my points by number, to try to help stupid lefties follow simple points.

That's nice. I'm quite capable of following any format of response. I don't only interact with you.

And you still didn't answer my question: Why not just block me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

I'm sure you have done it yourself. Where i answer one point and even though only a complete retard would not understand which question or point I was responding to, the lefty prtends to be confused so that they can dodge the Truth for another post.

YOU lefties tend to be really dishonest cunts that way.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

>I'm sure you have done it yourself. Where i answer one point and even though only a complete retard would not understand which question or point I was responding to, the lefty prtends to be confused so that they can dodge the Truth for another post.

I'll await an example by you where I have done this. Instead, as you say, it can be said to be "shit talk". You would again, cry like a little bitch if I were to say this about right-wingers.

I also can't note enough the irony of you complaining about lefties being unable to answer points without clear markers when you keep not noticing my question:

Why don't you just block me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

Rightwingerare not like this, so if you said they were, that would be lying.

So, naturally I would dcall you out on that.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

>Rightwingerare not like this, so if you said they were, that would be lying.

Ah yes, right-wingers are perfect and can do no wrong and never argue badly. But left-wingers are all uniformly bad and do everything wrong and argue badly. Do you even hear yourself? It's laughable.

You are just demonstrating your partisan hypocritical nature. You yourself have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate obvious and repeated hypocrisy. You cry about people being mean to you like a little precious bitch (when they've actually done no such thing) when in the other side of your mouth you're hurling abuse and baseless libellous accusations against others. Many others on here have done so too.

And again: Why don't you just block me? You're doing it RIGHT NOW. Do I need to put my questions in number points for your tiny pea brain to understand them?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

Thanks for demonstrating the behavior I claimed.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

I could say anything and you'd say that. I could simply say "good morning" and you'd claim it was somehow evidence of my poor behaviour.

It doesn't matter what I do.

And again: Why don't you just block me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

not true.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

Why don't you just block me?

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

Your continuing ignoring of my question (and many other questions to continue your attacks) is very Scientology vibes. In fact interacting with many of you on here gives strong Scientology vibes. Are you familiar with how they operate?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

why are you so afraid to talk about Trump?

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

Not answering anything until you answer why you won't block me, or this question.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

It's cool. i understand. Trump is clearly the better candidate going into this election and thus, you would much rather talk about ME, and attack ME, who people don't really know,

then Trump.

Trump has been talking really tough on deporting any of hte protestors who aren't citizens. I hope he follows though.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

I don't really want to talk to you about anything, to be frank. Beyond calling you out on your vicious, hateful behaviour towards me (and actually others) via disgusting libellous accusations and calls for me to kill myself.

I think you're a piece of shit and have zero intention to ever have any general discussion about politics. But I will still call you out on your nasty, vile scumbag behaviour.

And apart from which, if you refuse to answer my questions - why in the fuck should I answer any of yours?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

That's strange. You say you don't want to talk to me, but I keep seeing your responses in under notifications...

You know, some people might click on this thread because of the TOPIC, and not want to see you having a little hissy fit, like a little girly...girl.

I guess they don't count in your world view. You being soulless and all.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

Talk to you about anything other than calling you out on your vile behaviour towards me (and actually others) via disgusting libellous accusations and calls for me to kill myself.

>You know, some people might click on this thread because of the TOPIC, and not want to see you having a little hissy fit, like a little girly...girl.

They can look at other discussions within the thread. They aren't forced to be here anymore than you are.

Are you going to answer my questions, fuckface?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

But, we've discussed, "my behavior" to you, extensively. I've answered all your questions, over and over again.

ALll you are doing is having a hissy fit, like a little girly girl, and filling up the thread with shit.

So..... what do you get out of that? Do you get off on the public humiliation?

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 15 days ago

>But, we've discussed, "my behavior" to you, extensively. I've answered all your questions, over and over again.

No, you have not. You've just said "being nasty/evil/"shit talker"/troll" somehow makes me fair game and thus justifiable for you to attack however you like. You've of course failed to provide any example of my nastiness anywhere. That speaks more for your nastiness and hatefulness than anything else.

>ALll you are doing is having a hissy fit, like a little girly girl, and filling up the thread with shit.

I'm not the person who cries when scrutinise by others and puts them on a suppressive person list.

>So..... what do you get out of that? Do you get off on the public humiliation?

And apart from which, if you refuse to answer my questions - why in the fuck should I answer any of yours?

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (4561) 15 days ago

You're currently fighting with multiple posters on this thread alone...Perhaps it's time to take a step back from the keyboard and go outside in the sunshine!

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

I don't spend much time on these people. Their posts don't take much thought or time to respond to.

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 16 days ago

Pathetic. A person on the internet wrote some strong objections to your cliched arguments and attitudes so you wish to paint yourself as the victim of hate and hostility.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

You asked. If you don't care about the answer, then, why did you ask?

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 15 days ago

And I told you that you didn't need to answer. That we already knew.

Do you not understand the concept or rhetorical questions? Not even ones where the questioner literally tells you an answer is not required?

Answer not required.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

Yeah, um, you were wrong. So, I corrected you.

I do understand the concept of rhetorical questions. Asking one is a legitmate rhetorical devide.

The risk is that the person you are asking, has a real answer, that refutes the point you were trying to make.

Rhetorical questions work best, when your ANSWER, is true and not just shit talk.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 17 days ago

>1. We have policy disagreements. You deny me and mine our basic human rights. That is not the same. You are the bad guy here.

Without knowing the total detail of this interaction, it seems to be that people into recreational drugs (or drugs for medicational reasons depending on state) could argue that the drug war itself is a restriction on people's rights to legally take specific types of drugs. Same goes with alcohol consumption, if you do believe in returning to prohibition.

>4. Dude. You have admitted that you want to deprive me of my rights and look forward to when you can do so with violence. You are the bad guy here, not me.

The lack of self-awareness of this comment is utterly breathtaking.

Does it not sound remotely familiar to you?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. They could argue that. They would be shit talking. There is no right to have access to recreational drugs. There is a right to national soverighty.

4. Sure. Plenty of lefties that want to use violence to deprive Americans of their rights.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. How is that "shit-talking"? Perhaps they would argue for the right to be enshrined.

4. And you who wants to physically assault me. Hypocrite.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. They are making a claim that is false.

4. I think I said that to your other sock, not you.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. There's no right to 'hate speech' in the UK, as I know you are aware of, but you still treat that as an infringement of human rights - do you not?

4. No, you've said it to me. Here's where you made the implication: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/660c7f30debed218d7770de5/Is-it-morally-acceptable-to-edit-your-posts-and-imply-another-user-is-a-pedophile-just-because-you-dislike-them?reply=660c8a8bdebed218d7770ec4

And I don't use any other accounts. Although are you now admitting that its acceptable to threaten violence? If so, on what grounds can you complain about others doing it to you?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. It is an infringement on human rights. Your nation is losing freedom and it will have serious consequences for you. Forever.

4. Oh, you think I IMPLIED it? LOL. GO FUCK YOURSELF. You are a dishonest whore, and your seeing an "implication" means nothing. Did I mention for you to go fuck yourself?

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. Right, so someone arguing restrictions on drugs in the USA and alcohol would be considered the same in the USA REGARDLESS what the law actually says. And again, UK laws on expression aren't anything new. We're not "losing" anything.

2. I asked you to clarify in follow-up questions in that thread, but you refused. So you think it's acceptable to threaten people then?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Yes, you are. YOu have having your right to free speech denied. You are unable to freely discuss serious issues. People are being arrested for saying things that are true but that the powerful do not like being discussed.

2. So, that bit where you said I said it, that was just you talking shit. That raises the question of how much of what you say is shit. I was able to note NO distinctions between your style of speech in your proven shit talk and all the rest of your speech. I think EVERYTHING you say is shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. And Americans have the rights to access drugs curtailed by law. I'm not completely disagreeing with out about our hate speech laws, but at the same time - the same applies to Americans regarding drug access. If a law can in itself be against human rights, then so can American laws.

What things are people being arrested for? What topics are unable to be discussed?

2. What you specifically said was "You should be shunned and driven from normal society. No one could behave like you in real life. Our failure to have ways to deal with you online, is a failure of our cultrue to keep up with tech advancements." I asked for clarification, you refused. So I am left to fill in the gaps myself and judge your evasiveness on this point.

You did however also in this chain, say that you thought you'd threatened violence to "my other sock" (whether that was to me, or to someone else - I don't know). So why is it okay for you to threaten violence, but not when you perceive others as doing it?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. No, they don't.

2. I made my point clear. Your requestion for clarification was just you being a troll boi.

3. You are asking multiple questions at once trying to confuse the issue. Figure out what it is you want to know, then try asking it, like a person, not a troll boi. If you can.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. Why not? Why can it not be argued that drug restrictions constitute violations of civil liberties?

2. I'll ask again: What things are people being arrested for? What topics are unable to be discussed?

3. I've made that clear, as I asked in the initial thread: Should people be able to physically assault me? Do I deserve to be attacked?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. They are welcome to try to argue that case. I suspect they will make fools of themselves. Actually, considering the lefties I deal with, I suspect they will not be able to actually craft an real argument.

2. Various ones. Using real pronouns, or reporting on a rape case, truthfully, are examples I recall.

3. I'm not sure what the correct answer is for scum of the earth like you. I believe I made that clear before. We certainlhy NEED some way of controlling scum like you, but I am not sure of the proper answer, yet. Did you think that the answer had changed? No, you are just shit talking.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. Why would they make fools of themselves? It's the state restricting access to something by law.

2. I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

3. So how should I be controlled? You know, in a way that doesn't violate my civil liberties. Or do civil liberties not apply to me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Lefties can't think.

2. Why do you ask? It is not like you care. Nothing I say will matter to you. So, get your point, if you have one.

3. What part of "i don't know" do you not understand? Also, how fucking retarded to you think of yourself when you post online?

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. But you agree in principle that such a law could be so described as a violation of human rights.

2. I'll try again: I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

3. What even is the grounds for such a restriction? That I'm annoying? That my arguments are bad? It seems to me impossible to "control me" in a way that wouldn't violate my civil liberties. Which I thought was non-negotiable to you?

Apparently not.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. They could try. I doubt they could form a co-herent argument.

2. Can't be bothered. You are not worth it.

3. I've told you fully, many times before. Do you have brain damage remember?

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. Why should the government control what drugs people may legally purchase? How is it any different in principle to restricting firearm access?

2. Don't care. I'll try again: I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

3. No. Me being unpleasant isn't valid grounds at all. The USA literally allows neo-nazis to speak and does nothing. That is what free speech means. I have as much right to talk as anyone else does. You suggesting I should be "controlled" indicates a contempt, from you, for civil liberties and specifically free speech. You are, as usual, a hypocritical piece of shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Because the drug use is not a private matter. THe druggie will be a problem in many ways for society. THey will be a burden ON society.

2. I don't care, that you don't care.

3. Has nothing to do with you being unpleasant. So, that's a complete fail on your part. Only a complete retard would have thought that that is why I think trolls like you are a problem.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. And given all the gun crime in the USA, the argument could equally be made there - that they are a problem in many ways for society.

2. Don't care. I'll try again: I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

3. "Troll". A word you have yet to even provide a common ground definition for. I repeat: The USA literally allows neo-nazis to speak and does nothing. That is what free speech means. I have as much right to talk as anyone else does. You suggesting I should be "controlled" indicates a contempt, from you, for civil liberties and specifically free speech. You are, as usual, a hypocritical piece of shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. The argument's been made. It's weak.

2. Said the troll boi that has no point.

3. Troll=Skavau. There is your definition. lol! LOSER.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. By one person? Free gun access has as much, or could be argued to have as much negative influence on society as unrestricted access to drugs. But you only consider one inalienable but not the other.

2. Don't care. I'll try again: I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

3. What, are you 10 years old? What a pathetic childish response. You are unable to provide a common ground definition of troll independent of just saying my username.

I repeat: The USA literally allows neo-nazis to speak and does nothing. That is what free speech means. I have as much right to talk as anyone else does. You suggesting I should be "controlled" indicates a contempt, from you, for civil liberties and specifically free speech. You are, as usual, a hypocritical piece of shit

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Where the hell did you get the idea that I meant " by one person"? lol.

2. Said the troll boi that has no point.

3. Neo-nazis have shit to say. You have no point. You are like anti-speech.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. I really doubt you've read any arguments on drug legalisation and accessibility ever.

2. Don't care. I'll try again: I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

3. So now people's rights should be taken away from them if we judge their speech isn't saying anything? That's not how free expression works at all. You are against free speech.

I'm anti-speech? Says the guy who wants to use the state to persecute me. You are the fascist here. I have as much right to talk as anyone else does. You suggesting I should be "controlled" indicates a contempt, from you, for civil liberties and specifically free speech. You are, as usual, a hypocritical piece of shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Lol. So you jump from "one guy" to "everything"? Again we see that you have nothing to say. I gave a real answer, and all you have is nonsense.

2. still waiting for that point. That you do not have.

3. Interesting. I say, i don't know the answer to troll bois like yoursefl, and now you are inventing one and trying to assign it to me. THanks, but no thanks. Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. You implied your experience on this is more than just one guy. I said in response: I really doubt you've read any arguments on drug legalisation and accessibility ever.

2. Don't care. I'll try again: I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

My point actually is that you're full of shit.

3. You "don't know the answer" but you do think that I should be restricted in some way. That's the point. You flirted with the idea of me being stopped by force.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. YOur decision to assume stupid shit is on you, nothing to do with me. I f you ever have antyhing to say, let me know.

2. If you have a point, let me know.

3. I understand that you like to imagine shit and then hold me responsible for the shit you imagine. So.... whatever.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

1. I have a pretty low opinion of you, so I tend to assume the worst of you in general.

2. Don't care. I'll try again: I'll await an example of someone arrested for not using the right pronouns. What is the rape case you're referring to?

3. So if not the state, then what should stop me then?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 17 days ago

Immigrants have produced positive things the drug war had not.

No you just can't fathom someone disagreeing with you.

Shit talk noted.

You told someone to kill themselves. I've never done that. You also threatened to get in my face which is illegal fyi. So you have no moral high ground prick.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. We are past discussing pros and cons here. YOu have admitted to wanting to use violence to deprive me of my rights. You are... a thug and a tryant.

2. Sure I can. YOU are the one that can't do that. You also, can't even think properly.

3. NOting the hate you have for me and mine is hardly shit talk.

4. Yes. I do have the moral high ground. I'm not the asshole here who has admitted to be against human rights for Americans, and who is looking forward to using violence against his fellow Americans in support of foreigners, and who is anti-American.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 16 days ago

And you threatened to get in my face if we physically met. Which I guarantee you that's a mistake you wouldn't make twice. So no you are the one who threatened violence first.

No you can't. I've seen your post history numb skull.

Nope you are talking shit.

Nope you don't. People have the right to live as well. You told someone to commit suicide. So you say you are pro life but then wanted someone to commit suicide? You lost all credibility once you said that. Also that goes against Christian teachings now doesn't it? So don't preach to anyone you lost that right.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. I believe that was in the context of not thinking that you could bring yourself to say the stupid lies and shittalk you say here, face to face.

2. Dude. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I have a problem with people being complete assholes. That you don't understand the difference, is you being fucked in the head.

3. Dude. YOU are teh bad guy here, not me. Why are you such full of hate and oppose human rights and hate your own country?

4. My telling one very shitty person to kill themselves, is not me being against human rights as a principle. The argument you are making is retarded. You have lost and are just too much of a fag to admit it.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 16 days ago

And when I offered to meet you in person you declined. Also getting in someone's face is a crime.

No I've seen your history. You make asshole claims about the left without being provoked.

You are the one against someone's right to live. You are the bad guy.

Yeah it is. People have the right to live. Are you pro life or not?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. What law does it break?

2. You are a fool.

3. YOur shit talk is noted. In the real world, you are agaisnt human rights.

4. THat question made sense... maybe in the 70s, before the discussion had really taken place. It has been answered GENERATIONS ago that innocent life has the right to exist, people can LOSE that right by certain behavior, such as committing murder or being an enemy combatant. So, to bring that argument up now, is dumb.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 16 days ago

Getting inn someone's face is a crime. Look it up. That's considered assault especially when in a threatening or intimidating manner.

No your history is bad.

So are you.

Got it you have no way of knowing if that user committed murder or was an enemy combatant. You wanted him to kill himself because he pissed you off. Not how the law or human rights work prick. So yeah you lost the moral high ground by doing that.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Yeah, I'm I think you are full of shit. I have never heard of any arrest like that.

2. You are shit talking.

3. Nope. Fully support human rights. YOu are shit talking.

4. NO, I wanted him to kill himself, because he is a complete piece of shit. IMO, he does have the RIGHT to life, it is just that I was just pointing out to him that he is such a piece of shit that he SHOULD kill himself.

And that is the truth.

YOur inability to understand the simplest shit, and your hair trigger on bulding on stupid shit like that, makes you a fool.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 16 days ago

Look it up. Also why did you decline to meet me if you are so tough?

So are you..

Nope you told someone to kill themselves.

It's not your right to tell people what they should do. You crossed the line.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

1. Don't want to be doxxed by scum of hte earth. Would love to meet you, but, that would require giving information about where I am. So, rock/hard place.

2. I certainly am not. You are shit talking.

3. Dealign with the fact that some people are such scum of the earth that hte world would be better off without them, does not mean that I do not support the Right to Life.

4. I do have the right to express my opinion. Skavau is a piece of shit troll boit. Trolls are a problem that need a solution.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 16 days ago

I'm willing to do it. I don't have fear of a weasel like you. You are afraid. I wouldn't harm anyone unless it's self defense.

Nope you are.

Nope that's what it means. Don't break the rules of the site again got it?

Telling someone to kill themselves is a violation of the rules. You don't get to tell someone to kill themselves on here. Understand me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

It just accurried to me, Grift, that you haven't made a single supporting argument in support of your position.

You've made a number of assertions, such as denying that Americans have the human right of national soverighty, and that illegals have the right to life, but no logical or rational explaination as to WHY, or HOW.

And you've attacked me personally, and you've muddled the waters, and... talked a lot of shit,

but you can't think.

Or if you can, you are UTTERLY incapable of communicating your thoughts....

unless, your actual reasons are so dark and disgusting, that you are afraid to share them.

WHich is it?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 15 days ago

No you don't do that either, anytime someone asks you to backup a claim you say they are playing troll boi games. You won't be telling anyone to kill themselves on this site again. You understand me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

Your position is that Americans don't have the right to decide who to invite to join our group,

while your illegal friends have the right to go where they want and live there.

Those are both unsupported assertions.

I have supported my position by pointing out that Americans DO have that right, and your illegal buddies do NOT.

I have challenged you to support your position, but you have been unable to do so.

Unless I missed, you never asked me to support mine, probably becasue you know you would look really stupid doing so.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 15 days ago

Nope anytime I ask you to backup any claim you say it's a troll boi game. So I stopped asking you. You don't support the right to live. So your position is anyone who pisses you off should commit suicide. Once you support the claims I asked you to support we will move on. Until then we aren't moving forward. You aren't pro life. You rushed something against a Christian teaching. So do you believe in Christian teachings or not?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 15 days ago

THe number of times that I have had someone ask for a link and then respond with anything other than dismissing it and reasserting their position,

is... I'm fairly sure it has happened, but, rarely.

So, either it has to be a reasonable request, or the person in question has to have earned some credibility.

Your requests have been neither.

Also, it is worth noting that that is only one way to support a position. I was more referring to offering supporting arguments.

It is quite telling that that was inconceivable to you.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 15 days ago

Lol no you have done it constantly. You are lying and you know it.

That's also a lie and an excuse to not backup any claim you made. I don't think you are worthy of it either but when you asked me to supply info of racist cops I did it. Even after you gloated about how I couldn't lol.

So it's quite telling I was able to backup a claim and you couldn't. You got wrecked and others on these boards message and about what a piece of trash you are. I even had a conservative tell me you are a piece of trash on here.

I won't ever vote for Trump. You don't tell me who to vote for you understand me?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 14 days ago

Save your macho bullshit for someone that cares, fag.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 14 days ago

Says the guy who threatened to get in my face if we met. So you can dish it but you can't take it. Good to know.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 14 days ago

Grift, listen closely.

VOTE FOR TRUMP, OR ELSE.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 11 days ago

Or else what?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 11 days ago

You don't EVEN want to know.

VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

Consider that a legitimate COMMAND, from a man that clearly has AUTHORITY, over you, you spineless worm.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 11 days ago

Yeah an empty threat I thought as much. You need to vote for Biden. I'm ordering you to vote for him and you will.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 11 days ago

Here's the deal buddy.

I don't even recall what you are whining like a fag about, but I'd happily bet money that I made some point, and pointed out that logically, thus you, based on something you said, should by your own logic, vote for Trump.

And then you had a little hissy fit. Which I didn't care about then, and don't care about now.

YOu leftards seem to think that being upset and... loud? means that other people are supposed to care or give more credibility to your... whining.

All that actually does is show that you are more like a badly raised child than an adult.

So, whatever.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 11 days ago

You told me who to vote for like you were my parent. You wouldn't take someone doing that to you. Studies have shown conservatives are less intelligent historically. Obama divided far higher in school than your guy Trump did lookup the facts and get your eyes opened.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 11 days ago

I don't care about your hissy fit. Other than to laugh at you. And I've done that. So....

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 10 days ago

Not a hissy fit. It's me not taking your shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 10 days ago

Some guy o the internet gave you his opinion on who you should vote for and you're still whining about it, how much later? Weeks?

Yes, buddy, that's a hissy fit.

You're demonstrating that you are an hysterical little girl, not a man.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

>4. I do have the right to express my opinion. Skavau is a piece of shit troll boit. Trolls are a problem that need a solution.

I forgot when you told me to kill myself.

So you don't support human rights. You think "trolls" (a term you haven't even provided a common ground definition for) should have a "solution". That is hostility to free expression.

You are a hypocritical, authoritarian piece of shit.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

Trolls don't express anything. THey suppress discussion.

This thread is supposed to be about Trump.

You troll bois have made it about me.

You are anti-speech in that way.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

>Trolls don't express anything. THey suppress discussion.

You are free to talk around me, to other people. You can just block me. I suppress absolutely nothing. That you don't like what I say is not "suppression".

>This thread is supposed to be about Trump.

And it is, in the many other chains. Sorry the consequences of you being an authoritarian piece of shit have caught up with you but I will never drop it. This is blowback, as you say. I will always remind you of how much of an anti-american hypocritical vile piece of shit you are.

>You are anti-speech in that way.

That's not "anti-speech". You are anti-speech. You wish to restrict my civil liberties.

Because you are an authoritarian anti-western hateful piece of shit who hates civil liberties. You want to use the state to harm me.

Scumbag.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 16 days ago

Your denial of reality is noted.

reply

[–] Skavau (10243) 16 days ago

>Trolls don't express anything. THey suppress discussion.

You are free to talk around me, to other people. You can just block me. No-one makes you reply to me. I suppress absolutely nothing. That you don't like what I say is not "suppression".

>This thread is supposed to be about Trump.

And it is, in the many other chains. Sorry the consequences of you being an authoritarian piece of shit have caught up with you but I will never drop it. This is blowback, as you say. I will always remind you of how much of an anti-american hypocritical vile piece of shit you are.

>You are anti-speech in that way.

That's not "anti-speech". You are anti-speech. You wish to restrict my civil liberties.

Because you are an authoritarian anti-western hateful piece of shit who hates civil liberties. You want to use the state to harm me.

Scumbag.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 8 days ago

Nope I am directly addressing your point. You are the one who has dodged.

I know that you disagree with me on the morality of the drug war. I got that loud and crystal clear. See in your mind you aren't supporting an immoral policy. A Nazi can say in their mind they don't believe they were supporting an immoral policy. Does that make it not immoral because the Nazi doesn't think it's immoral in his mind?

If I was dishonest why are you not debating me on the drug war? You don't because you know you would get schooled like before. You deep down are afraid of knowledge and have too much pride to admit when you are wrong. Know this pride comes before the fall.

My actions in not supporting an immoral policy shows I care about people. You support things which harm society.

I haven't ever reported anyone on here. I just think it's funny you claim to be moral and Christian when you tell people that on here. It exposes you for the hypocrite you truly are.

Didn't dodge anything. You are the one who declined to defend your position and why the drug war is moral, positive or necessary. I gave you the chance to defend the drug war. You know you can't do it, so you dodged.

Anyone who dodges like you is an asshole.

If that were true you would gladly prove your point on how the drug war is a good thing. You couldn't do it. In short either debate how the drug war is good or you can go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 8 days ago

See, the discussion is not about the drug war.

What you are doing now, is trying to change the subject because you don't want to address my point, becasue you know it is true.

Standard lefty evasion tactics. Also troll boi.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 8 days ago

Nope I directly asked you to explain why the drug war was moral. You only said I disagree about it being immoral. Disagreeing isn't supporting your argument. You have the floor. Explain to me why the drug war is good.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 8 days ago

Yes, because this thread si not about that.

I made a point based on how YOUR actions show that YOU know that your policies are wrong for this country yet you support them anyways.

MY actions with regards to the drug war, don't do that.

Discussing our disagreement about the drug war here, in this context, is nothing but you shutting down the previous discussion, because you lost.

It's an effective way of avoiding the truth, but the downside is that it requires you to be a complete fucking asshole.

For some people, though, thats a PLUS.

Clearly you are one of those people.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 7 days ago

The thread started from us on why I think Trump hated me and mine. He wants to deport illegals, and he lied openly about Obama. A far better president than him by the way.

My actions prove I care about my friends and people in general. You supporting the drug war does prove you support evil.

Ok fuck the drug war then. Trump lied about Obama and it was hatred to me and I can't get past it. Dispute that.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 7 days ago

NOthing in that addressed anything we were discussion. All you didd was reasserting your original positon.

If you had a shred of moral courage, you would concede at this point.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 7 days ago

I went back to my original point. I don't trust Trump and I think he hates me and mine. I gave my reasons. Deal with that.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 7 days ago

Except your reasons made no sense.

You are just doing the logical fallacy of proof by assertion now.

You know you lost, so all you have is spamming shit talk.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 7 days ago

Him lying about Obama made no sense? No that was rather clear! Me not agreeing with deporting immigrants? Nope that was clear. Now we can discuss why I don't believe in doing it. Let's proceed or you going to shit talk?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 7 days ago

Dude. Him talking shit on obama doesn't show hate.

It's retarded of you to claim it does.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 7 days ago

Your opinion. I happen to disagree with you on that. See how that works?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 6 days ago

Dude. You're stonewalling. Go ffuck yourself.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 6 days ago

Disagreeing is stonewalling? Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 6 days ago

Stonewalling is stonewalling. You lying whore.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 6 days ago

Disagreeing isn't stonewalling. You are a deceptive little weasel.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 6 days ago

But stonewalling is.

So go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 6 days ago

And I disagreed with you about Trump lying about Obama means he hates us. Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 6 days ago

I addressed that. Now you are stonewalling.

Fo fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 6 days ago

And I still didn't agree with you. You addressing something doesn't make me have to agree with you now does it?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 6 days ago

YOu don't get to ignore it.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 6 days ago

I didn't ignore it. I just didn't agree with it still.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 6 days ago

You disagreement is nothing but you standing by an assertion that you have done nothing to support.

And refusing to do more than repeat your assertion over and over again.

That's stonewall.

Also, that is you being a fag.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 6 days ago

I did support it by showcasing that Trump died that because he knows what it will do. He knows by lying like that it will fan a flame. He knows there are people ego are bigots which will repeat that lie even if it's been proven wrong. So no I did support my assertion.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 5 days ago

That bit where you assume that you know what he knows and thinks?

Yeah, that's called "pulling shit from your ass".

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 5 days ago

You do that to liberals all the time. You say you can judge what someone thinks by their actions. I am judging him off of his actions.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 5 days ago

No, I don't. You're an idiot that doesn't understand anything.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 4 days ago

Yes you do. I am judging Trump off his actions.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 4 days ago

In your above post you start with YOUR OPINION of his action. Then on top of THAT, you THREE times assume you know what he was thinking in regards to his action.

That is not judging him by his actions, that is just you talking shit and justifying it with more shit.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 4 days ago

You have done the same. I figured that's the way we ran things since I have you on record doing it.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 4 days ago

Thanks for admitting that you did that.

That means your conclusion was shit talk.

Your claim that I did the same is just you talking like a fag. You are a fag.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 3 days ago

I did what you did. You do it constantly.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 3 days ago

You understand d nothing and/or you lie all the time.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 10 days ago

Coming from the guy who told someone to kill themselves? Yeah you don't get to pull that card. I have more control than you since I've never pulled that. That's a child who resorts to antics like that.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 10 days ago

The person I told that too, was a complete asshole to me over several months. My being angry with him was well justified.

My telling you who I thought you should vote for?

That's nothing. To be triggered by that is weakness and sadness on your part. Grow up snowflake.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 10 days ago

You getting angry is justified, you stepped over the line by telling someone to kill themselves. Is that in Christian teachings that it's okay to tell someone that if they are rude or make you angry?

Nope it's assholish to talk me like I'm your kid. If I did that to you, you would tell me to eat shit. Also snowflake? Lol I'm not the one who bitches about racist people in Hollywood and then proceeds to give my money to them. That's you being a simp. Grow up and take responsibility snowflake. You are responsible for funding evil.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 10 days ago

Correct. I had just reason to be pissed, while you had a fit over nothing.

Grow up, toughen up and get a life, snowflake.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 10 days ago

Reason to be pissed doesn't give the right to tell someone to kill themselves. Nice avoiding what I said. So anytime someone gets mad or has the right to be mad that gives them the right to tell someone to kill themselves. I had the right to be pissed over you being an asshole wrong.

Keep funding racism which you hate snowflake.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 10 days ago

And again to make your case, you have to lowball the behavior from Sakavau.

Do you not see how your action there, demonstrates that you know my position is correct?

If you really thought I was wrong, you would have been honest about what a piece of shit skavau is, and still made your claim.

Instead you knew that to not look like a complete fool, you had to lie about what my complaint actually was, to make it sound... like something harmless...

You know that such behavior is vile and needs to be dealth with harshly. You lie proves that. But you still side with the guy that you know is the bad guy in this.

Why are you knowing choosing to be on the side of the bad guys?

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 10 days ago

I didn't low-ball anything. Low balling would have been if I said you had no right to be angry. I admitted you had the right to be angry. You think if someone makes you angry that gives you a pass on telling someone to kill themselves. Many people have made me angry but I don't do that. Why do you think that is okay when you claim to be Christian? Do they teach that it's okay to tell someone that if they make you angry?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 9 days ago

That would have been lowballing it MORE, but you still lowballed it quite a bit.

And that shows that you know you NEEDED to low ball it, to justify your position.

Simple point here, that you will never address.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 9 days ago

No you have no idea what low balling is. So is it okay to tell your kids to kill themselves if they make you angry? Is that Christian?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 9 days ago

Yes, I do have an idea. You are doing it now. Shove your gaslighting up your ass.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 9 days ago

No you don't. So very Christian of you. Want to tell me to kill myself? That would be the cherry on top.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 9 days ago

Is that your intent? To be such an asshole that I tell you to kill yourself?

Is that your purpose in being here, to be such an asshole that you provoke a response that you can use to get someone banned?

Fairly normal lefty behavior, btw.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 9 days ago

You are a coward. You won't be ever telling someone that again on here. I promise you that. That's typical conservative behavior btw.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 9 days ago

Is that your intent? To be such an asshole that I tell you to kill yourself?

Is that your purpose in being here, to be such an asshole that you provoke a response that you can use to get someone banned?

Fairly normal lefty behavior, btw.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 9 days ago

You are a coward. You won't be ever telling someone that again on here. I promise you that. That's typical conservative behavior btw.

If this is what we are doing I will warn you I got all day. You respond with a spam this will be it going forward on this thread. Your choice.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 8 days ago

Except, I'm not the coward.

YOU are. You are terrified of the other side having a chance to speak.

On some level, you know that you are an evil person, supporting evil ideas, that will hurt the majority of people.

SO, avoiding serious or honest discussion, is a must for you.

You are afraid of TRuth. And people that are not afraid to speak it.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 8 days ago

I think the drug war is immoral. You think it's moral when it ruins people's lives. That's an evil ideology that you support. You know it's evil and don't care that it is. It's why you avoided discussing that once you knew I knew what I was talking about. Care to explain how the drug war is moral to me? You also want prohibition of alcohol to return as well right?

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 8 days ago

I disagree with you.

I think that hte Drug War is moral.

Do you understand that I disagree with you?

Also, I did not say that I want prohibition of alcohol to return. That you think I did, was you being a complete moron.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (816) 8 days ago

You disagreeing doesn't change it being a failed or evil thing. Support your position. Explain to me why the drug war is moral and a good thing. I can debate this with ease since I went to school studying this topic. Go ahead.

reply

[–] tvfan (9192) 8 days ago

I went to school studying this topic.

LMAO. School doesn’t make you more knowledgeable, it just makes you more indoctrinated and brainwashed.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 8 days ago

Buddy, you are purposefully missing my point, out of fear.

My point was that I DISAGREEE WITH YOU, on the morality of the drug war, so IN MY MIND at least, i am NOT supporting an "immoral" policy.

YOU have demonstrated that IN YOUR MIND, you know that you have to be dishonest to defend your positions and policies.

YOUR actions show that you k now that the shit you support, is bad for people.

Two forms of action in this thread alone.

1. Your attempt to provoke me to break the rules so you can get me banned. That is you knowing that you cannot win the debate because your postions are BAD, so you seek to silence your enemies.

2. The way you just used the pretense of being stupid to avoid addressing my point. AGAIN, you show that when confronted by a tough point, instead of believing in the rightness of your position and defending it, you instead go to dishonesty to dodge the point.

It is also worth nothing that both of these actions require you to be a fucking asshole.

To summerize, your actions show that you know I am right and you are wrong AND you are a fucking asshole AND go fuck youself.

reply

[–] luvthepros (580) 10 days ago

[–] Corbell (8851) SAID 7 days ago..................

"For me, it's that he doesn't actively hate me and everything I believe in, with a fiery passion,

the way the Left does."
=====================================================
You do not have to be on the left politically to not believe the religious fairy tales. I am a prime example. I am conservative (although not a fan of Trump) but do not believe in any of that religious bunk.

reply

[–] Corbell (9107) 10 days ago

Do you hate people that do believe in it, and do you hate their beliefs with a fiery passion?

Or are you fine with Christian people and their christian beliefs?

reply

[–] Blade13 (952) 17 days ago

I can't get past how handsome he is. How is it even possible.

reply

[–] robocat893 (13961) 17 days ago

Everyone knows you're gay for ex-president Trump.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13742) 17 days ago

He let it slip one time that he's highly intelligent too , and smells great. He's the full package!

reply

[–] Blade13 (952) 17 days ago

https://twitter.com/_emergent_/status/1790067782194794691

what about this?

reply

[–] robocat893 (13961) 17 days ago

I am a US Army veteran and I can't get past Trump's obvious disrespect for our military and its veterans. Trump has disrespected gold star families, called fallen military losers and suckers, disrespected McCain by saying he likes people who weren't captured, canceled his visit to a WW1 American memorial in France because it was raining and he didn't want to mess up his hair, he's a draft dodger, etc.

This is why Trump has lost a lot of support from the military and veterans.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4219) 16 days ago

Valid point

reply

[–] Yatzo (1426) 17 days ago

Where to begin!?
- [x] 👉88 (Was 91) Criminal Charges (in all) Felon #(PO1135809)
👉26 Sexual Assault Allegations
👉6 Bankruptcies
👉5 Draft Deferments
👉4 Indictments
👉2 Impeachments
👉1 Convicted Company of Fraud
👉1 Fake University Shut Down
👉1 Fake Charity Shut Down
👉$25 Million Fraud Settlement
👉$5 Million Sexual Abuse Verdict (with more just added)
👉$2 Million Charity Abuse Judgment
👉1,127,152+ Americans died of Covid because of his lies and not taking action.
👉50,000+ documented lies to the American people.
👉Dismisses the entire constitution that America was built on.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13742) 16 days ago

You forgot his attempted coup on J6
The worst is a toss up between that^ and
"1,127,152+ Americans died of Covid because of his lies and not taking action."

Although I'd say the 2md one is a lot more debateable / grey area / less cut & dried .
Cant wait for the J6 trial!

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (769) 15 days ago

Don't forget the:
1)obstruction of justice during the Russia investigations
2)the revolving door employment style of the white house
3)the warmongering with North Korea
4)him hiding his drone strike numbers.

reply

[–] SandyR (7556) 16 days ago

I'll never forgive him for fucking up the USFL back in the 1980s.

reply

[–] Martoto (4355) 16 days ago

I don't know why that colossal failure isn't given more news. The USFL was growing its own market independent of the NFL. Which was remarkable as pro football wasn't doing terribly great in the ratings at the time.

Anyway, Trump, not interested in sustainable growth and just interested in appearances and his own ego, fucked it all up by pretending it was the sixties when TV was really starting to make football pay out, and there was more than enough room for a rival league to flourish and eventually merge. But Trump convinced the USFL to fake it in order to bluff the NFL into accepting new franchises that way. It was simply not possible for it to succeed at that time. So Trump sued and the judge agreed that he had lost potential profit and NFL had gained a little. To the tune of one dollar. I think the judge must have felt embarrassed about chucking out such a frivolous lawsuit after Trump had already pissed his, and mostly other people's money down the drain. And decided to give him a pyrrhic award. Trump still claims that as a win.

It's like if the makers of Tang decided to start telling people it was Cola. And put it on the shelves with all the Cokes and Pepsis in the Cola aisle. Nobody is going to start buy Tang over Cola. And the folk who look for Tang in the Tang aisle are going to buy something else when the Tang isn't there any more. So then you sue Coke and Pepsi for not buying out their harmless and insignificant competition. Oh brother.

An utterly abject and pathetic failure of the most embarrassing kind. And to think some people on this board think he's smarter than just about every person in the country.

It's also the epitome of unAmerican-ness. Trying to get something without actually working for it. It seems you can do that as long as you also do the epitome of American-ness. Suing to get what you want even if you don't deserve it.

reply

[–] SandyR (7556) 15 days ago

Oh, there's a lot of that going around--manipulating things to get something unearned. Happens in every field these days.

reply

[–] DMT (3939) 16 days ago

He was the most pro israel president in the history also his bumpstock ban was incredibly unconstitutional and would have set a horrible precedent if the supreme court he elected didn't strike it down

reply