The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Kingpoleon]

Durbin, Stabenow, Murray, Baldwin, Bennet, Tester, Van Hollen, and Warner would all be better than Schumer.

I forgot that you like Schumer's support for Israel and political corruption.

[Kingpoleon]

Kingpoleon's posts are bad in subtle, artful ways. Look in awe as he uses two separate bad arguments to make an unclear point.

Just a reminder that Roosevelt could easily have ordered the death of all Japanese-Americans, and over fifty percent of the country supported wiping out everyone of Japanese blood.

At least Reagan's reaction to such a threat wasn't: "Jail all the gays!!!"

Just because you don't understand what two entirely unrelated points have to do with the conclusion doesn't make my argument dumb - you might not just be clever enough to understand it.

[Kingpoleon]

Hell no.

Marxism is stat-ism.

Any Marxist should not buy or enjoy commerce, as they are totalitarians.

So... You're a "Marxist" and support Stacey Evans and Beto O'Rourke?

I would think even Jealous and Sanders would be too right wing for anyone who is really a Marxist.

[Kingpoleon]

I got really nervous since I thought the brunt would hit the Miami area at first. I am more relieved now because it looks as though it will roast the west coast instead. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see people and stuff destroyed, but if it is inevitable, I would rather have it hit a red area than a blue area. As people correctly pointed out about LA post Katrina, maybe a reverse of that will happened in Florida, which could really help out in 2018 and 2020.

Emphasis mine

It actually makes me angry to read stuff like this. Jesus...

I know.  I also get angry whenever I see someone use the media's dumb "red = Republican, blue = Democrat" color scheme.

Maybe he meant that he prefers for it to hit a Democratic area than a Republican area, as that would help trigger sympathy for Democrats - or that he misspoke and meant to say it would help Republicans, which would make sense, as he is a very conservative Democrat.

[Kingpoleon]

This why Congress should introduce legislation banning tackle football.

I wish I could say this is the worst post this year, but I'm afraid it may not even be in the 5 worst sports related ones given some of the things I have come across.

I mean, it really should be for the sense of entitlement and moral decay, but I think the former is moreso why.

If alcohol were to completely go away, 90% of society's problems would be instantly cured.  In an ideal world, alcohol should be illegal, but I think that we would have had to do that in the 1700s or 1800s and that the negative externalities of doing that today would outweigh the benefits.

Came here to post this ... glad I don't have these types of friends, LOL.

Isn't this guy like 15 or something? It's a natural view for some kid who hasn't had his first beer yet.

He's in his early to mid twenties, I think.

[Kingpoleon]

An ineffective ban, to be sure. If she were the deciding vote, Haley would support it. However, we can't risk hurting our relationship with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, India, China, and Japan at this time.

Beat me to it.

I made that post based on information available at the time. Knowing what we know now, I would not make that post.

[Kingpoleon]

snip

Welcome aunt tammy.

wtf does that even mean?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Aunt%20Tammy

He's calling her an Aunt Tammy for being a black woman who likes Republicans.

Bagel23's bigotry strikes again.

Before your time, I think, Ben Carson was called an Uncle Tom by several of our most prominent leftists - many of whom would assert that racism is inherently antithetical to liberalism/leftism.

[Kingpoleon]

Massive FF. A bit of a special interest backer, but most people are, and those who aren’t are usually awful, divisive, and sometimes even support violence.

I don't get it.

Well, for one thing, the idea that most people are special interest bankers... It just oozes of the most obnoxious kind of centrism.

Support union rights? You like special interests.

Support corporate tax cuts? You like special interests.

Subsidies for agriculture, oil, renewable/alternative energy? Support the NRA or NARAL? Et cetera, et cetera. Special interests aren’t always big, shadowy companies. Special interests represent your uncle who is a coal miner, your neighbor across the street who owns a small business.

[Kingpoleon]

*Absurd and Ignorant One-Liners

Supporting an immoral ideology is a grave moral failing. To claim otherwise means to be fundamentally unserious about one's political beliefs.

Of course, everyone has their moral failings and we shouldn't be too quick to judge people for them, but I thought "terrible person" was pretty widely accepted forum hyperbole for someone who does something that's clearly bad and is unrepentant about it.

So, to be clear, if I regularly volunteer at homeless shelters and donate a large portion of my income to charity, but I oppose welfare legislation, then I’m a terrible person?

Yes, actually

[Kingpoleon]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

[Kingpoleon]

What part of "basic human right" don't you understand?

I'd love to hear what you folks consider a "decent living" and how it is a "basic human right"?

Providing everything and taking away the incentive to provide for oneself is truly what is out of touch, and contradicts what people think of as "the American Dream". It's outright insulting to folks who operate on a low income, not that I'd expect some young internet socialists with no life experience who likely have never experienced extreme poverty to understand.

Oh good god, you are the one who is operating under the apparent illusion that people on welfare are guilty until proven innocent - under the idea that people must prove themselves "worthy" in order to have the right to take advantage of the welfare state.

Instead of trying to treat people with a little bit of empathy, or of understanding for why someone has ended up where they are; you are just driving into this ridiculous trope of comparing the "deserving" with the "undeserving" poor.

What this is, is merely a convenient fiction intended to destroy the welfare state, by pretending that some people don't deserve access to it, and thereby undermining the concept that underpins the idea. Like I said earlier, people aren't welfare scroungers because they are selfish and lazy, they are forced into giving up hope because of a system that doesn't care about them - and instead of attacking the people who are treated the worst by a broken system, you would do far better to think about why modern capitalism apparently has created a subclass of people doomed to a life on welfare.

Bullschit. Requiring minimum standards to weed out potential fraud is common sense. Welfare is something we do because we care about people, not because every single person is entitled to free money just for being alive. I doubt most people receiving government money are cheats, but if the only harm in requiring minimal efforts by recipients to show that they aren't like Russell Brand or Spanky Macher or Linda Taylor is that *gasp* some people may question your socialist worldview, then boo frickin hoo.

Again, welfare is to help people ... not because all people have a RIGHT to free money. Considering the strict requirements many on the left want citizens to go through to exercise ACTUAL rights, like gun ownership or holding public protests, saying, oh by the way, can you get this form signed to show you checked to see if there were any jobs available before we send you your check this month, is pretty minimal.

"Unlike not dying of starvation, gun ownership is an actual right."

Are you trying to pull the ninth amendment?

No, because I'm more concerned with actual rights then whatever is plastered in the constitution.

Actual rights and the Madisonian Constitution are not mutually exclusive, but you’ve never been a big supporter of democracy.

[Kingpoleon]

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.

Rights are provided by the Constitution, and as our governing document we are inherently bound to it as much as we are to democracy. Violating any of it is tantamount to saying it is no longer applicable, destroying the mandate of Congress, the President, and our society.

[Kingpoleon]

One can believe something should be a right, and they can view it as a right, but until it is codified into law and/or the constitution, then it won't be treated as such. Given where society finds itself technologically and resource-wise, I do believe healthcare should be a right, but I also understand clearly that a lot of elections need to be won and laws need to be passed before healthcare is actually treated as a right.

There’s still a difference between single-payer and universal, as to which, for your statement only the latter is implied.

Also, since when did “right to” mean “the government gives it to you”? I support revenue-neutral, universal healthcare because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s a right.

[Kingpoleon]

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.

Rights are provided by the Constitution, and as our governing document we are inherently bound to it as much as we are to democracy. Violating any of it is tantamount to saying it is no longer applicable, destroying the mandate of Congress, the President, and our society.

Did the moral right to equal protection regardless of race exist before the 15th amendment passed in 1870? Would it still exist if the 15th amendment had never been passed?

If a moral right does not legally exist, it does not exist.

[Kingpoleon]

Please tell me you’re being sarcastic.

Rights are provided by the Constitution, and as our governing document we are inherently bound to it as much as we are to democracy. Violating any of it is tantamount to saying it is no longer applicable, destroying the mandate of Congress, the President, and our society.

Did the moral right to equal protection regardless of race exist before the 15th amendment passed in 1870? Would it still exist if the 15th amendment had never been passed?

If a moral right does not legally exist, it does not exist.

So if murder is legal then it's ok?

🤔

No, then the prohibition of murder is not in place, making it legally allowed. See the difference?

[Kingpoleon]

Wow. Don't even try to pretend this cuts both ways. Democrats, or at least most Democrats I know, would never support or vote for one of their own if there was a chance that person was a sexual predator. Meanwhile, a huge number of Republicans wouldn't care if their guy raped children so long as he pedals all the racist, sexist, warmongering nonsense they love to hear.

At this point he isn’t exactly wrong

Wow. Don't even try to pretend this cuts both ways. Democrats, or at least most Democrats I know, would never support or vote for one of their own if there was a chance that person was a sexual predator. Meanwhile, a huge number of Republicans wouldn't care if their guy raped children so long as he pedals all the racist, sexist, warmongering nonsense they love to hear.

The simple truths mine is that way. ->

Stated like true, blind partisan hacks!

Seriously, are all pretending we don't have a million "HERE IS WHY AL FRANKEN RESIGNING IS BAD" threads? Or how the only well-known rape accuser that's publicly acceptable to call a liar is Juanitta Broadrick?

Not just a liar. She called Hillary’s defeat her “victory in my decades long struggle against the abusive, manipulative Clintons” after Election Day on Facebook. Democrats flooded in response, calling her a pig, a sl*t, a b*tch, and many, many other names. Let’s not pretend that Republicans have done anything remotely comparable.

[Kingpoleon]

Blinded partisan remarks that ignore the truth because they don't fit in his little fantasyland bubble

Democrats love their sexual predators.

Just ask all the Dems who still love folks like Bill Clinton, John Conyers, and Al Franken.

Let's not forget the super Dem state of California:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/24/sexual-harassment-allegations-california-democrats-306231

And those are just a small handful of examples.

Stop pretending you're a member of some special FF party when you guys are just as bad as the other guys.

R A D I C A L  C E N T R I S M  intensifies

Another shameless Dem hack who can't accept the truth appears!

At least we can all get a good laugh from triggered Dems on here who pretend their party is some magical group of folks who would never sexually harass or assault anyone, defend someone who does, or even vote for said person, despite plenty of examples proving otherwise.

Seriously though, this type of behavior is unacceptable no matter which party someone is affiliated with (and as I mentioned before, it's been proven that yes, both sides actually do it).

Y'all need to get off your high horse and take off your blinders.

I would like to remind everyone that Trump’s sexual assault rumors weren’t even a whisper until his campaign began, unlike Bill Clinton. Believe me - victims don’t come out immediately. It takes years to build up the courage to stand up to powerful people, as we have seen in the past, and that’s what makes me suspicious of these claims. And I say this as someone who would never vote for Donald J. Trump because of his lack of leadership ability, morals, and political ineptitude.
 
While we’re bomb-throwing and mud-slinging, Hillary Clinton aided and abetted, and covered and protected a rapist - her own husband. She threatened his victims, and then denied their right to be heard and believed. Hillary Clinton has a horrendous double standard that would bring a sense of shame to any decent person not deafened by an echo chamber of liberal and Democratic voices.

[Kingpoleon]

Wasn't George Wallace pretty much a segregationist (and socially conservative) Bernie Sanders?

This isn't as absurd as it seems on the surface. Wallace was fairly progressive on economic issues.

...He was conservative to the core.



Let's dispel the fiction that Dixiecrats were "economically progressive."  Even during the New Deal, Southern Democrats aided the GOP in opposing FDR's programs.  Most of the Democrat party bosses who controlled the region didn't like black or white poors.

Democrats controlled an entire region; to say that all of them were "economically progressive" OR economically conservative would be dumb.  There was obviously a spectrum.  However, Southern Democrats only began to oppose the New Deal once it was solidly in place and seen as helping Blacks a tad too much.  There weren't any Southern Democrats opposing the initiatives in the first few years.  It's disingenuous to insinuate they were pretty much just voting exactly like Republicans.

To be fair, the Republican Party at a national level wasn't necessarily monolithically "conservative" back then (certainly not in the post-WWII, "movement conservative" sense) as it is today. Then again, as you noted, the Democrats 100% controlled via Jim Crow practices and memories of Lincoln and Reconstruction an entire region - the very same region in which the Republicans are hegemonic today (and among the same demographic - said region's white voters are the largest, most consistent, and most monolithically "conservative" regional bloc of Republican voters in the way in which most people use the term post-WWII, post-Goldwater/Wallace/Nixon/Reagan/Gingrich and yes, in our current Age of Trump). 

Good luck finding any Rockefeller/Dewey/(George)Romney/Scranton-style Republicans in that region at any point in American history (unless you count the almost-forgotten first crop of Southern Republicans during Reconstruction, ironically enough! ).

Also, keep in mind the kinds of Southern Democrats who tended to chair and control Congressional Committees, which were of course much more powerful fiefdoms back then. Those Dixiecrats certainly weren't what you'd call bleeding hearts, needless to say...

Robb Ryerse, Winthrop Rockefeller, Winthrop P. Rockefeller, Linwood Holton, Mills Godwin, John Dalton, Howard Baker, Jay Dardenne, and many, many others would be surprised to hear this news.

[Kingpoleon]

I wonder why Mary Taylor is doing so poorly despite John Kasich's endorsement. I mean, he's a very popular governor and would win reelection easily if he wasn't term-limited.

Because Kasich is a Democrat?

Let's see, Kasich is extremely pro-life, has an anti-gay record (despite virtue signaling), has an A rating from the NRA, supports right-to-work laws, favors massive tax cuts, is anti-union, and is very hawkish on foreign policy. He's far to the right of even Joe Manchin yet somehow he's now a Democrat

Kasich supports a 24-week ban, not an 8-week ban. Kasich’s only anti-gay record is voting for DOMA. Kasich supports the Parkland protesters. Kasich is so anti-union he was voted for by 53% of union members. Kasich has pledged to put a balanced budget ahead of tax cuts. Kasich is “very hawkish” in the sense that he supports fighting Assad, but has indicated that he would be slightly friendlier towards Russia and China.