The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Oh please. Atheists have the world's biggest chip on their shoulder. They face basically zero challenges in this secular country outside the deepest south and when they try to pry their way into religious organizations. Atheists tend to be "better educated" and wealthier on average yet try to pretend they're disadvantaged and oppressed. Give me a break.

-That description applies much better to Jews than atheists, though it does not apply well at all to either of them.

-That's not absurd or ignorant.

Seconded

Oh, come on. It's incredibly absurd. Jews have been oppressed around the world for millennia. In half the goddamn world, it's still the case, including much of America. I'm sure Sunrise could make a better post here than me here, so I won't say too much, but ugh...

It's an anti-Semitic comment, plain and simple. There's plenty of reasons it's ignorant, absurd, and incorrect.

He said that it doesn't apply well to either of them, just that it applies less badly to Jews.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

This isn't bad. While I don't entirely agree with it, it certainly doesn't belong here.

The implication is that raising taxes on the rich is never a bad idea. No exceptions. Not even if the tax rate is in the 90's already. That is pretty absurd.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why do so many people vote no on 1986? It was a revenue neutral tax reform plan that passed with broad bipartisan support.


But I would easily vote yes on both.

Cause the far left believes that all tax cuts are bad and the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes.

That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich.

Lol.

This isn't bad. While I don't entirely agree with it, it certainly doesn't belong here.

The implication is that raising taxes on the rich is never a bad idea. No exceptions. Not even if the tax rate is in the 90's already. That is pretty absurd.

Never said it's never a bad idea, we need tax increases, for the rich and upper-middle class to pre 1980 levels (or even higher for the rich).

You responded to someone saying "the only good changes to tax laws is if you increase taxes." with "That would be correct, especially if it's for the rich."

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You can't be religious without being a hypocrite...though Evangelicals are the worst

Fits all three adjectives quite nicely, really.  A shame, as I thought this guy came off smarter than that.

-He's right.

Just when I thought your views couldn't get worse.

He is way past the point where "religion is hypocrisy" would make him noticeably worse in any reasonable person's mind.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This place shouldn't have any more Democrat mods.  Obama is out of office.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Frankly I don't care what happens to Indian women until the Lok Sabha repeals Paragraph 377.

Apparently the British are not good enough to govern India but their Victorian laws about sex are just perfect.

I don't mean to sound anti-Indian, cause I'm not. Jamaica has the same problem, but as a major country this issue should have been cleared up years ago.

"Rape is okay if the country has terrible sex laws".

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No, he hasn't. He's fine. You not liking his views doesn't make him a bad poster.

Islamophobic/racist vomit, deliberately rubbing it in when he learns that he hit another posters sore spot, more Islamophobic trash,  likely racism(the bizarre hatred of Obama doesn't seem directed at any policy),  saying that "criticizing the state of Israel is not equivalent to criticizing all Jews" is like saying "I don't hate black people but I support segregation", etc, does

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It's called a picture. I'm pretty sure.

Yet another reason you're an idiot.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

I think that was already posted here.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

More morty racism:

But they certainly aren't going to be supporting Trump in 2020. The presidential primary process is heavily weighted toward the black vote and almost intentionally so. Strategically, blacks have plenty of clout in the Democratic Party, which is hardly being taken for granted.

"You guys aren't actually being taken for granted"

Good strategy, I'm sure that kind of message will resonate, way to win them over.

Win them over? They vote 90% Democrat in every election! They are already won over.

They are won over because the Democrats provide them with social programs. As long as Democrats keep doing that (which they will categorically), message is irrelevant.

They aren't won over if 60%+ of them feel taken for granted. And now you're falling pray to that same strain of logic, "They'll vote for us as long as we give them this one issue, who cares if the vast majority aren't currently satisfied."

This kind of thinking is setting the Democrats up to lose a loyal constituency. Maybe they won't vote Republican, but they'll become disenfranchised and vote in much lower numbers, as they did with Hillary.

This is a BS survey designed to get a bad result "Hello, yes, have the Democrats made your life perfect? No? Do you think the cowardly Democrats have done enough to fight Trump and his ties to Russian dictator Putin? How do you feel about Trump nominating racist Jeff Sessions to be in charge of the police?"

and the "one issue" you talk about is giving them a ton of cheap housing and free food.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'd be furious if this happens, they should all be deported.

You're not an American. Deal with it.

The neocon wants foreigners to but out.

Such a post would belong in the irony oremine, if anywhere at all.

A better post for this gallery:

I'd be furious if this happens, they should all be deported.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Most city areas are trash, unless their working class not ghetto but poor ones, in which these areas are also trash, but my kind of trash.

This thread is for collecting bad posts, not making them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

-Cross out "Trump" and replace with Hillary. Take a look at what happened in Ferguson. Somehow, I doubt those people were a prime Trump demographic.

Wrong. Trump is what many aspiring rappers wish to be: Gold plated apartment, Hot bimbo wife, Being a millionaire, and grabbing women by the pussy

Both of them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn! 

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago. 

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Oh, abortion will always be an option for people.  Technology is a beautiful thing.

I know this would be politically unpopular, but, once abortion is illegal, I would support a travel ban to any locations where elective abortion is legal to stop any Americans from being aborted and put pressure on those governments to ban it too.

lmao

(People like you are why I favor abortion rights, fwiw)

come on now it's perfectly understandable that the product of a failed abortion would have some pretty radical views on the matter

This is absolutely disgusting.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Everyone is going to support whatever electoral system is best for their party, which is fine and the way things should be.  I would hardly call it crazy for Nebraska to move to the system that 48 states use.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

People who think of Perez as a centrist-corporate shill just show how far the Democrats have come.

*Supports TPP*
*Smeared Bernie Sanders ruthlessly during primaries*

TPP being a good or bad deal was debatable, and being mean to Bernie doesn't mean anything when judging whether he's progressive or not.

1. No, TPP sucked, I find it silly when "progressives" debate that, it puts us in a deal with countries that "tolerate slavery," is that progressive?
2. If Bernie smeared Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar or someone, everyone would be screaming about how he's not a true progressive. Tom Perez smears Bernie and he's still a progressive hero to some people though.

1. Stop thinking in absolutes. These countries are extremely poor, the trade deals bring in resources and capital, helping them develop and improving quality of life in the long term. The toleration of slavery isn't stopped if the us refuses to do trade deals. There are labor standards in the TPP, though they aren't great. If we don't make trade deals in the pacific, China would be happy to do it instead, and China isn't exactly known for its human rights record.

2. First, what are these "smears"? Remember that during the primary, Bernie was continuing to run pointlessly despite being both completely unable to win and free of any party support. Democrats were probably getting pretty annoyed about bernie not dropping out like basically any other nominee would at that point. It was a pointless battle, the only thing it accomplished was to damage Clintons image and force her to spend more resources on the primary instead of the general. Bernie isn't immune to criticism.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

1. I'm not morally okay with doing deals with countries that have SLAVERY, but there's also the part about changing the setup so that the nations aren't a check on the corporations but that they are equals and disputes are resolved by some international tribunal, I'm no isolationist but I'd prefer we keep our sovereignty and don't sell it to multinational corporations kthanks
2. Labor Secretary Advised Clinton To Cast Clinton As Candidate Of Whites To Turn Off Minorities he basically tried to paint Bernie as racist (the same Bernie who got arrested protesting for civil rights and the same Bernie who marched on Washington with MLK, very racist guy)
The second part of that is just the "NO ONE DARE RUN AGAINST QUEEN GOD EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON #IMWITHHER" argument. Is he not allowed to criticize her? It's not his fault she wasn't for gay marriage until 2013, it's not his fault she voted for the Iraq f**king war.

1. Corporations in many countries can already sue the US. Corporations being able to sue doesn't give them absolute power. They can lose(and of the 17 such suits presented before the us via other deals with the same clause, they always have). And the deal isn't going to enhance exploitation(or more accurately, the jobs that are created will be marginally less awful then what life they would have had before, they take the jobs for a reason), but it will lead to economic growth, and though that growth will mostly help those with high wages already, the small amount that trickles down, as well as the infrastructure that is built, is certainly better then nothing. We need to do more, and the tpp isn't as good as it could be, but its the best we've got right now. China is going to fill the void we've left when we ditched the tpp, and considering its record on human rights, I doubt its going to be anything but worse then the tpp.

2. Wow, a source that describes itself as for members of a particular ideology(one that really hates clinton). Seems like a good source of bias-free news. Plus, this kind of campaigning happens. Bernie not being so good at reaching out to minorities (with the exception of asiansl isn't exactly untrue(esp early in the primary, and hitting him on that isn't calling him a KKKer. I'd consider his attacks on Clinton over "connections to wall-street" pretty similar. Clinton was planning to run for president and thought that a vote against the iraq war(which a major chunk of the democrats voted for) would hurt her in a general. Add to that the fact that it would definitely pass without her vote, and it doesn't seem quite as bad. Sanders lived/lives in a senate seat where voting for the iraq war might be something of a liability.  Ditto on gay marriage. So many people in the party supported Clinton because when you work with her in person, she's the kind of person who will get your respect. The real woman behind the persona known as hillary is not some boring piece of plastic, she's someone who you become loyal to out of respect. Unfortunately, none of that translates to electoral ability, perhaps because of the public shell she's built due to the extremity of the sexism she faced in the 80s and 90s. She seemed to come out of it some during the first debate(which was her best time in the polls IIRC), which was amazing, but I don't think it lasted...

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A bit late but Jesus f**k

When is the appropriate time to share my feelings? I feel as if I am in limerence. I really need to get this off my conscience.

You dont, make a physical move.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A bit late but Jesus f**k

When is the appropriate time to share my feelings? I feel as if I am in limerence. I really need to get this off my conscience.

You dont, make a physical move.

I don't see the problem here. Spark said he was going to take his crush out to dinner, and I'm pretty sure Rjjr was telling him to be himself and go in for a kiss when the date ended.

What's wrong with that?

You don't make sudden physical moves on someone after a first date. Consent matters. People don't like being randomly forced into a kiss; unwanted intimate contact is really violating.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You don't make sudden physical moves on someone after a first date. Consent matters. People don't like being randomly forced into a kiss; unwanted intimate contact is really violating.

Nobody has ever liked being asked "Can I kiss you?"

Being asked about it on the first date  isn't a turnoff, and it's definitely better then just doing it. Something  I forgot to add is that this wasn't a romantic date he was talking about, it was a platonic hangout.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A bit late but Jesus f**k

When is the appropriate time to share my feelings? I feel as if I am in limerence. I really need to get this off my conscience.

You dont, make a physical move.

I don't see the problem here. Spark said he was going to take his crush out to dinner, and I'm pretty sure Rjjr was telling him to be himself and go in for a kiss when the date ended.

What's wrong with that?

You don't make sudden physical moves on someone after a first date. Consent matters. People don't like being randomly forced into a kiss; unwanted intimate contact is really violating.

A kiss isn't "random" if you're on a date. If you both had an awesome time on your date and feel like there's chemistry there, it's perfectly reasonable to go in for a kiss without asking. Worst case scenario he/she pulls away and refuses. I mean how exactly do you envision a kiss happening on a first date?

It's not as if he/she forcefully grabs you by the back of the head and proceeds to tongue rape your face. lol

There's something called nonverbal signals. The best way to do it is to use those. If you're good enough to not misinterpret those signals. Otherwise, just ask. Asking when they would say yes is a hell of a lot better then not asking when they would say no. Plus, "make a physical move" very much implies being forceful.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

How did I miss all this stuff about CC until now? I'm just going to point out that insulting a person and trying to crush them will never change their mind. No matter how good the arguments and zingers are.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Manchin is losing in the primary anyways.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

1.women can get laid whenever they want to....with some exceptions for age and ugliness