Please wait...
Tue Aug 01 2017 12:58:25 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ UncensoredMeanwhile, in a parallel universe where Trump (PBUH) did not win the nomination, President Clinton has brought the economy down into a full recession/depression, our southern border has been erased, the entire border patrol has been fired, we are on the way to single-payer socialized medicine, and each community now has the ability to switch from Constitutional law to sharia law simply by obtaining the signatures of 100 residents.
The problem is that the single-payer system prioritizes you by an algorithm co-written by Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Zuckerberg...
Basically, if your medical problem might make the news, you get an appointment. Otherwise, you have to upgrade to the next available system.
How come there is no alternate universe where Trump ran as a democrat, won the nomination and the presidency?. He acts the same way, says the same stupid things publicly and on social media, wants to achieve the goals, his actions have been the same but the democrats love him and the republicans think he is a moron.
I just saw a video, Mr. Foobar was NOT in Texas and did NOT injure himself. He did however put on shoe polish and go on CNN to promote Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/08/05/i-faked-being-black-to-get-into-med-school.cnn
so ... North Korea?
Does that little twit actually think nuclear war is a good idea? It's not like he's going to "win" but the thought of him deciding "what the hell, we're dead either way, launch the nukes" is kind of alarming.
Amusing, however, is the thought that libs probably fear nuclear annihilation less than they fear the inevitable approval boost President Trump (PBUH) would automatically receive from becoming a wartime president.
- Secretary of State James Mattis
So let me see if I've got this right...
1. There is violence
2. President condemns violence
3. Leftists criticize President for not condemning violence
Mon Aug 14 2017 12:31:55 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
So let me see if I've got this right...
1. There is violence
2. President condemns violence
3. Leftists criticize President for not condemning violence
Not quite...
3. Leftists criticize President for not condemning one of the parties responsible for the violence but not blame anyone else who may have been party to said violence.
Obama mentions "shared responsibility" and how both sides are to blame, good.
Trump mentions both sides are to blame, bad.
(Before you get your panties in a bunch, I think Obama and Trump are fools.
Actually, zooer, when you draw a moral equivalency between a murderer and some people whose only crime was to speak their minds, yes that's "bad."
Beyond bad: your argument is fucking moronic, and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't have immediately disclaimed it. So here's a suggestion: if you have a point to make, learn how to be articulate. Take some fucking English classes, or something. Don't just vaguebook all the time.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450545/donald-trump-charlottesville-political-debacle-consequences-steve-bannon
Remain sarcastic; we're not friends.
And if you're not angry at these racist assholes and the bigot-in-chief who's whitewashing them, you're low on brain cells.
This truly is a bizarre situation. Under what pretense does a leader who has repeatedly disavowed bigotry and violence from *all* sources get to be labeled a "bigot-in-chief" ?
People from groups X, Y, and Z are clashing and hating on each other and being violent. The President basically says "this needs to stop, it needs to stop from *all* of you" and the lib response is "How dare he calls out all groups! He must disavow only Group X and also admit that he's part of that group, thus proving that he is Hitler! And if he doesn't do so, he is also Hitler!"
I choose not to be in a constant state of anger, extremism is wrong but I can not waste time and energy always being angry about what I can not change.
2017-08-17 18:51 from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd
This truly is a bizarre situation. Under what pretense does a leader
who has repeatedly disavowed bigotry and violence from *all* sources
get to be labeled a "bigot-in-chief" ?
You really don't get it...
"both sides" are not to blame in a vicious unproved murder. This is not complicated! Anybody who wants to equivocate is on the side of evil.