Now I know a couple of you will jump in here and say "This is conspiracy theori
s". This is how they want to shut you down. But if you do your own research and
look up what the UN through the Davos group want's to put in place it will scar
the hell out of you. BTW here is a link to Glenn Becks article in it.
In case you missed it last week press secretary Jen Psaki said "The President wants to make fundamental change in our economy, and he feels coming out of the pandemic is exactly the time to do that". Part of the president Joe Bidens "Build it back better" program. Wait, where have I heard that before...Yes the world economic forum https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/ As Glenn Beck has stated "This is
the most dangerous movement in the world right now. It is a direct shot, by a railgun, at liberty. Now I know a couple of you will jump in here
and say "This is conspiracy theories". This is how they want to shut you down. But if you do your own research and look up what the UN through
the Davos group want's to put in place it will scare the hell out of
you. BTW here is a link to Glenn Becks article in it. https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-glenn-beck-program/glenn-beck-new-biden nce-plan?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
Glenn Beck is a known liar and sensationalist.
Glenn Beck is a known liar and sensationalist.See everyone, he can't refute what I have brought before you with facts, so he tries the oldest lefty trick smear someone to dis-credit them.
Notice he does not mention anything about Davos, Biden, Great reset,
just attacks Glenn Beck. The best part is they never say what (in this
case Glenn Beck) has lied about. Seems the Jeff is the liar and sensationalist...
Jeff Squires wrote to All <=-
In case you missed it last week press secretary Jen Psaki said "The President wants to make fundamental change in our economy, and he feels coming out of the pandemic is exactly the time to do that". Part of the president Joe Bidens "Build it back better" program. Wait, where have I heard that before...Yes the world economic forum https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/ As Glenn Beck has stated "This is
the most dangerous movement in the world right now. It is a direct
shot, by a railgun, at liberty. Now I know a couple of you will jump in here and say "This is conspiracy theories". This is how they want to
shut you down.
Jeff Thiele wrote to Jeff Squires <=-
Glenn Beck is a known liar and sensationalist.
Glenn Beck is a known liar and sensationalist.Standard Leftie ad hominem attack.
They can't argue against him and his logic so Lefties just resort to name calling.
On 24 Oct 2021, Ron Lauzon said the following...
Glenn Beck is a known liar and sensationalist.Standard Leftie ad hominem attack.
They can't argue against him and his logic so Lefties just resort to calling.
No, he's a known liar. It's not name-calling; it's who he is.
Is he lying here?
How to Counter BLM's Race LIES | Bob Woodson | The Glenn Beck Podcast |
Ep 106 https://tinyurl.com/4cpfdpyt
Jeff Thiele wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-
Standard Leftie ad hominem attack.
They can't argue against him and his logic so Lefties just resort to name calling.
No, he's a known liar. It's not name-calling; it's who he is.
Standard Leftie ad hominem attack.You need to look up what "ad hominem" means.
They can't argue against him and his logic so Lefties just resort to calling.
No, he's a known liar. It's not name-calling; it's who he is.
Glenn Beck is a known liar and sensationalist.
See everyone, he can't refute what I have brought before you withfacts,
so he tries the oldest lefty trick smear someone to dis-credit them.
I did not smear you; I discredited your source as uncredible. There's a difference.
Notice he does not mention anything about Davos, Biden, Great reset,
just attacks Glenn Beck. The best part is they never say what (in this
Glenn Beck lies.
case Glenn Beck) has lied about. Seems the Jeff is the liar and
sensationalist...
Glenn Beck has lied about a number of things.
For most people, it just goes
without saying that he's an unreliable source but if you need a list, here you go:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/
so he tries the oldest lefty trick smear someone to dis-credit them.
I did not smear you; I discredited your source as uncredible. There's a difference.
Glenn Beck lies.
I didn't say smeared me, you are trying to smear Glenn Beck to discredit him.so he tries the oldest lefty trick smear someone to dis-credit tI did not smear you; I discredited your source as uncredible. There's difference.
Glenn Beck lies.Again you provide no proof just a blanket smear. Just if I were to say
you were a racist with out showing proof.
I did provide proof of past instances in which Glenn Beck lied.Glenn Beck lies.Again you provide no proof just a blanket smear. Just if I were to sa you were a racist with out showing proof.
My personal favorite, though, is how he was hospitalized for a
hemorrhoid or something while working for CNN and sent out dispatches crying and saying how horrible the US healthcare system was...
And then he worked for Fox News during the ramp-up to Obamacare and couldn't stop saying how the US has the greatest healthcare system in
the world.
That is not proof that is a story you are posting... Dates, actual credible material is what is needed...I did provide proof of past instances in which Glenn Beck lied.Glenn Beck lies.Again you provide no proof just a blanket smear. Just if I were you were a racist with out showing proof.
My personal favorite, though, is how he was hospitalized for a hemorrhoid or something while working for CNN and sent out dispatches crying and saying how horrible the US healthcare system was...
And then he worked for Fox News during the ramp-up to Obamacare and couldn't stop saying how the US has the greatest healthcare system in the world.
That is not proof that is a story you are posting... Dates, actual credible material is what is needed...
That is not proof that is a story you are posting... Dates, actual credible material is what is needed...
I think if you search, you can find those.
As far as Glenn Beck's actual claim, Biden's finance report is not the same as the "great reset." Although Beck claims that Psaki's
announcement is the *exact* language, "almost" a quote, of the language used by the World Economic Forum, the words they have in common seems to be some variation of "fundamental" and "change." The concepts behind
this "fundamental change" are not even similar in the two cases.
However, being that conservatives are by definition opposed to changes
to the status quo, especially financially or economically, I would
imagine that "fundamental change" is quite a scary term.
No you are the one making a claim, you are the one that needs to show proof.That is not proof that is a story you are posting... Dates, actu credible material is what is needed...I think if you search, you can find those.
As far as Glenn Beck's actual claim, Biden's finance report is not th same as the "great reset." Although Beck claims that Psaki's announcement is the *exact* language, "almost" a quote, of the langua used by the World Economic Forum, the words they have in common seems be some variation of "fundamental" and "change." The concepts behind this "fundamental change" are not even similar in the two cases. However, being that conservatives are by definition opposed to change to the status quo, especially financially or economically, I would imagine that "fundamental change" is quite a scary term.Sorry, you fail.... Try again next time.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/08/07 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Communication Connection 1:120/457 (1:120/457)
No you are the one making a claim, you are the one that needs to show proof.
I believe I did.
imagine that "fundamental change" is quite a scary term.Sorry, you fail.... Try again next time.
"Conservative" literally means "averse to change or innovation and
holding traditional values; favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas."
It seems it is you who has failed.
Do you often find yourself shooting off before you mean to?
NO, you didn't... You are a RACIST.No you are the one making a claim, you are the one that needs to proof.I believe I did.
No conservatives are not averse to change or innovation they just don't want change or innovation that "fundamentally changes the country"."Conservative" literally means "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values; favoring free enterprise, private ownersh and socially traditional ideas."imagine that "fundamental change" is quite a scary term.Sorry, you fail.... Try again next time.
Change is neither good or bad, it depends on what the change is to.
"Conservative" literally means "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values; favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas."
No conservatives are not averse to change or innovation they just don't want c
nge or innovation that "fundamentally changes the country". Change is neither od or bad, it depends on what the change is to.
Do you often find yourself shooting off before you mean to?My, my, my... I see I have have won as you just have to use cheap insults...
Saying they are averse to "change or innovation" is too vague. They are averse to most of the changes that a progressive or leftist would want because most conservatives don't want to live in a society with heavy government controls or a socialist one with government ownership over everything."Conservative" literally means "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values; favoring free enterprise, private owner and socially traditional ideas."No conservatives are not averse to change or innovation they just don't c
nge or innovation that "fundamentally changes the country". Change is ne od or bad, it depends on what the change is to.
In the American colonies, revolution was a liberal idea. The conservatives, those opposing change to existing traditions and social structures, favored remaining loyal to the king.
In the lead-up to the Civil War, the conservative position was again the preservation of existing traditions and social structures, specifically allowing slave states to remain slave states. When a neo-Conservative says that the Civil War was not about slavery but about the Southern way of life, this is exactly what they're alluding to. Of course, the slave states felt that such a "fundamental change" was an attempt to control them, which in a sense it was, but that's entirely ignoring the fact that they were in favor of actually owning people and denying those people basic rights.
The conservative stance on non-landowners voting was once again to uphold the existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative stance on blacks voting was once again to uphold the existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative position on women voting was once again to uphold the existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative position on civil rights was once again to uphold the existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative position on equal pay for women was and continues to be to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involves controlling people.
The conservative position on miscegenation was to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative position on segregation was to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative position on gay rights was to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative position on same-sex marriage was to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involved controlling people.
The conservative position on disproportionate police brutality toward blacks is to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy. This indirectly involves controlling people.
The conservative position on voting rights is to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy at any cost. This indirectly involves controlling people.
The conservative position on immigration is to uphold existing traditions and social hierarchy. This directly involves controlling people.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?But that is all history, Jeff. Whenever someone brings up history that you don't like, you discount it as such. For example, I could point out above that several of these historic "conservative" stances were also "democrat party" stances, but I know that, for democrats, turnabout goes against their narrative and isn't seen as playing fair.
In the American colonies, revolution was a liberal idea. The conservativ In the lead-up to the Civil War, the conservative position was again the The conservative stance on non-landowners voting was once again to uphol The conservative stance on blacks voting was once again to uphold the The conservative position on women voting was once again to uphold the The conservative position on civil rights was once again to uphold the The conservative position on equal pay for women was and continues to be The conservative position on miscegenation was to uphold existing tradit The conservative position on segregation was to uphold existing traditio The conservative position on gay rights was to uphold existing tradition The conservative position on same-sex marriage was to uphold existing The conservative position on disproportionate police brutality toward bl The conservative position on voting rights is to uphold existing traditi The conservative position on immigration is to uphold existing tradition Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?But that is all history, Jeff. Whenever someone brings up history that you don't like, you discount it as such. For example, I could point out above that several of these historic "conservative" stances were also "democrat party" stances, but I know that, for democrats, turnabout goes against their narrative and isn't seen as playing fair.
In the American colonies, revolution was a liberal idea. The conservativ In the lead-up to the Civil War, the conservative position was again the The conservative stance on non-landowners voting was once again to uphol The conservative stance on blacks voting was once again to uphold the The conservative position on women voting was once again to uphold the The conservative position on civil rights was once again to uphold the The conservative position on equal pay for women was and continues to be The conservative position on miscegenation was to uphold existing tradit The conservative position on segregation was to uphold existing traditio The conservative position on gay rights was to uphold existing tradition The conservative position on same-sex marriage was to uphold existing The conservative position on disproportionate police brutality toward bl The conservative position on voting rights is to uphold existing traditi The conservative position on immigration is to uphold existing tradition Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?But that is all history, Jeff. Whenever someone brings up history that you don't like, you discount it as such. For example, I could point out above that several of these historic "conservative" stances were also "democrat party" stances, but I know that, for democrats, turnabout goes against their narrative and isn't seen as playing fair.
Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-
But that is all history, Jeff. Whenever someone brings up history that you don't like, you discount it as such. For example, I could point
out above that several of these historic "conservative" stances were
also "democrat party" stances, but I know that, for democrats,
turnabout goes against their narrative and isn't seen as playing fair.
Lefties always are "Rules for thee, but not for me." But that just
plays into their need to be "elite".
The COVID pandemic, or more specifically the medical community's proposed response to it, represented a significant change to existing American traditions as well as the existing social hierarchy. The initial conservative response was to deny that anything happened, and then to down play the severity and threat level of the pandemic. Resistance to common-sense measures aimed at controlling the pandemic continue to this day.
Allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice and participate in sports in line with their own gender identity is another example of conservatives attempting to uphold existing traditions and preserve the social hierarchy.
Climate change, or more specifically our political and economic response to it, is another modern example. Conservatives initially denied that it existed, the begrudgingly accepted that it exists but adamantly denied that humans had anything whatsoever to do with it, and then admitted that humans had something to do with it but feigned ignorance at exactly how much. The oil, gas, and coal industries are the most directly affected by efforts to combat climate change, but general resistance to accepting windmills and other forms of renewable energy (except hydro-electric which has been around for some time) is related to the the need to uphold existing traditions and preserve the socioeconomic status quo.
You may very well be ashamed of the actions and beliefs of the conservatives who came before you, as well you should be, but rest assured that the same forces are at work today. Just as history has not looked kindly upon the conservatives of the past, so it eill not look kindly on the conservatives of today. The thing to remember is that the conservatives of the past believed with every fiber of their being that they were right.
Additionally, both Critical Race Theory and kneeling during the anthem to protest disproportionate police brutality toward blacks are seen by conservatives as threats to existing traditions and social hierarchy.
But that is all history, Jeff. Whenever someone brings up history that you don't like, you discount it as such. For example, I could point
out above that several of these historic "conservative" stances were also "democrat party" stances, but I know that, for democrats,
turnabout goes against their narrative and isn't seen as playing fair.
Lefties always are "Rules for thee, but not for me." But that just plays into >their need to be "elite".
The COVID pandemic, or more specifically the medical community's propose response to it, represented a significant change to existing American traditions as well as the existing social hierarchy. The initial conserv response was to deny that anything happened, and then to down play the severity and threat level of the pandemic. Resistance to common-sense measures aimed at controlling the pandemic continue to this day.So, wait, De Blassio, Cuomo, and Pelosi are conservatives, too? They
must be because their original response was to deny that anything
serious was happening, to deny that we couldn't continue with business
as usual, and to deny that there was any reason to restrict travel.
Allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice and participat sports in line with their own gender identity is another example of conservatives attempting to uphold existing traditions and preserve the social hierarchy.There are several born-female athletes who are against having born-males competing in female sports where they would have a natural advantage. Statistically speaking they cannot all be conservative.
Several other people don't care that they are not "binary," but draw the line at restrooms because they don't want male-equiped persons in the restroom with young girls. Since not all trans-genders are gay, i.e.
they id as male-equipped women who are attracted to women, I can understand their frustration. I know several Democrats and folks more liberal than I who draw this line so, again, not just conservatives.
Climate change, or more specifically our political and economic response it, is another modern example. Conservatives initially denied that it existed, the begrudgingly accepted that it exists but adamantly denied t humans had anything whatsoever to do with it, and then admitted that hum had something to do with it but feigned ignorance at exactly how much. T oil, gas, and coal industries are the most directly affected by efforts combat climate change, but general resistance to accepting windmills and other forms of renewable energy (except hydro-electric which has been a for some time) is related to the the need to uphold existing traditions preserve the socioeconomic status quo.Again, most conservatives I know are not against green energy so long as it can sustain the power grid. Right now, it cannot without fossil fuel sources. Those folks who want to point to some small green utopia city that is supposed to be able to support tens of thousands but currently cannot meet their power demands with only a few thousand people without falling back on the fossil-fuel power grid are grasping at straws.
You may very well be ashamed of the actions and beliefs of the conservat who came before you, as well you should be, but rest assured that the sa forces are at work today. Just as history has not looked kindly upon the conservatives of the past, so it eill not look kindly on the conservativ today. The thing to remember is that the conservatives of the past belie with every fiber of their being that they were right.Here we go... I only had to read one message to be right. "Feel bad
about America's history, you should..." says Leftie Jeff.
Another thing to remember... leftists like you believe with every fiber
of their being that they are right, even when they are full of it.
Additionally, both Critical Race Theory and kneeling during the anthem t protest disproportionate police brutality toward blacks are seen by conservatives as threats to existing traditions and social hierarchy.No, it is seen as being false (depending on who teaches it) and being disrespectful.
If that latter group wants to put their money where their mouths are and try to help out their local communities to stop the violence, that is great. Several do. Others don't really care enough to. Maybe that
group of kneeling non-doers does feel the way you do, I would not know
or care.
I would also say that if they don't want to be the targets of the police, don't do stupid things. In this area, for example, if I see someone smoking dope in public (which is illegal, and a good way to draw that unwanted police attention), they fall into one of two categories:
- teenager of any race or sex
- a non-female, non-hispanic, non-white adult
The vast majority fall into that latter category. Since I know for a
fact that there are white and hispanic adults of both sexes, and non-white, non-hispanic female adults that still smoke dope, the difference is the "in public" part. The only assumption I can make is that, for whatever reason, that second, adult group either didn't learn
as a teen, or was not taught that if you want to keep smoking dope you need to do it out of the public eye.
Based on those observations, I am not at all shocked to hear which group it is that has a disproportionate number of drug arrests, encounters
with law enforcement, etc. I am also smart enough to realize that what
I have observed can probably be applied to other illegal things besides smoking pot.
OTOH, I have never seen a non-white adult that made me immediately think "meth head." I have seen plenty of white, usually males, that do.
Lefties always are "Rules for thee, but not for me." But that just plays >their need to be "elite".Indeed. Now, why aren't you busy feeling guity about American's history? You well should be! You should feel so bad that you want to go out and set fire to someone's business, or some public property, or some other destructive behavior that inches us closer to a more controlling government, or anarchy.
Allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice and participaThere are several born-female athletes who are against having born-males competing in female sports where they would have a natural advantage. Statistically speaking they cannot all be conservative.
sports in line with their own gender identity is another example of conservatives attempting to uphold existing traditions and preserve the
social hierarchy.
That, however, is the predominant conservative view, is it not?
It is predominantly conservatives, though. And if you think I'm an extremist, I strongly suspect that your "liberal" friends are simply less conservative conservatives than you are.
Again, most conservatives I know are not against green energy so long as it can sustain the power grid. Right now, it cannot without fossil fuel sources. Those folks who want to point to some small green utopia city that is supposed to be able to support tens of thousands but currently cannot meet their power demands with only a few thousand people without falling back on the fossil-fuel power grid are grasping at straws.
Great strides have been made in renewable energy sources in the last few decades, despite the fact that conservatives have fought against it the entire time. And they've done so primarily because of the impact that moving to primarily green energy would have on the oil, gas, and coal industries.
We all should. Our country supported slavery. We've imrpoved over time, but have had to bring the conservatives among us kicking and screaming into each new century.
If that latter group wants to put their money where their mouths are and try to help out their local communities to stop the violence, that is great. Several do. Others don't really care enough to. Maybe that group of kneeling non-doers does feel the way you do, I would not know or care.
I dunno, man. They sure got your attention, didn't they?
Along those lines, there are probably some areas in which the majority of drug busts are among the white population. Statistics would suggest that either meth heads are extremely polite and submissive people, or police brutality towards unarmed blacks is highly disproportionate.
Lefties always are "Rules for thee, but not for me." But that just playIndeed. Now, why aren't you busy feeling guity about American's history?
their need to be "elite".
You well should be! You should feel so bad that you want to go out and set fire to someone's business, or some public property, or some other destructive behavior that inches us closer to a more controlling government, or anarchy.
No one here said that. Perhaps you should feel guilty enough about America's history to stop for a minute, think about your own views, and ask yourself if you're perpetuating the same mistakes. Nice how you jumped to the extremist response, though.
I would say this goes beyond conservative. The only thing that makes it "conservative" are the far-leftist who believe it is a good thing just because that is what they should think, and want to blame conservativesThere are several born-female athletes who are against having born- competing in female sports where they would have a natural advantag Statistically speaking they cannot all be conservative.That, however, is the predominant conservative view, is it not?
or religious people, even if it would bother them personally if they
found themselves in a restroom-sharing situation.
It is predominantly conservatives, though. And if you think I'm an extre I strongly suspect that your "liberal" friends are simply less conservat conservatives than you are.Extremist, maybe not. Leftist rather than liberal, yes.
Great strides have been made in renewable energy sources in the last few decades, despite the fact that conservatives have fought against it the entire time. And they've done so primarily because of the impact that mo to primarily green energy would have on the oil, gas, and coal industrieI don't see that big an impact on fossil fuels, since green cannot keep up, especially when they force everyone to green cars, increasing the
draw on the power grid and the demand for non-green power sources.
That is, unless you are willing to go true green and give up your automobile and electricity all together, including the internet. I would applaud such an effort, as even some Amish societies are not willing to
go that far any more.
We all should. Our country supported slavery. We've imrpoved over time, have had to bring the conservatives among us kicking and screaming into new century.Supported, past tense, is the key word. None of us were alive then.
Many white people in the USA now are decended from people who were not even in the country then, people who were but didn't own slaves (and
could have even been against the practice), or people who were who freed slaves they had long before the Civil War. Some of them might even be decended from other traditionally oppressed white ethnicities.
Not everyone is the decendent of a plantation owner. If you are, then good on you for wanting to feel guilty. I personally believe it is just laziness... wanting to group all white people in one category and not worry about the truth that we are not all the same... sort of like how racists group all people of one race together when they are not the same.
Maybe that is why you feel guilty... you have more in common
with lazy racists than others of us do.
Getting attention shouldn't be the point, but I suspect it was.If that latter group wants to put their money where their mouths ar try to help out their local communities to stop the violence, that great. Several do. Others don't really care enough to. Maybe tha group of kneeling non-doers does feel the way you do, I would not k or care.I dunno, man. They sure got your attention, didn't they?
Helping to change things should be the point. I have not changed any of my behaviors because of their attention-seeking.
Along those lines, there are probably some areas in which the majority o drug busts are among the white population. Statistics would suggest that either meth heads are extremely polite and submissive people, or police brutality towards unarmed blacks is highly disproportionate.If you've ever seen a meth head, you would know most are not very capable of doing much that requires physical activity.
No, you've said it, but if you are claiming to be "no one," I guess it is true that no one here said that.Indeed. Now, why aren't you busy feeling guity about American's history?No one here said that. Perhaps you should feel guilty enough about Ameri history to stop for a minute, think about your own views, and ask yourse you're perpetuating the same mistakes. Nice how you jumped to the extrem response, though.
You well should be! You should feel so bad that you want to go out set fire to someone's business, or some public property, or some ot destructive behavior that inches us closer to a more controlling government, or anarchy.
I would say this goes beyond conservative. The only thing that makes it "conservative" are the far-leftist who believe it is a good thing just because that is what they should think, and want to blame conservatives
or religious people, even if it would bother them personally if they
found themselves in a restroom-sharing situation.
Mike Powell wrote to RON LAUZON <=-
Lefties always are "Rules for thee, but not for me." But that just plays into
their need to be "elite".
Indeed. Now, why aren't you busy feeling guity about American's
history? You well should be! You should feel so bad that you want to
go out and set fire to someone's business, or some public property, or some other destructive behavior that inches us closer to a more controlling government, or anarchy.
Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-
Again, most conservatives I know are not against green energy so long
as it can sustain the power grid. Right now, it cannot without fossil fuel sources. Those folks who want to point to some small green utopia city that is supposed to be able to support tens of thousands but currently cannot meet their power demands with only a few thousand
people without falling back on the fossil-fuel power grid are grasping
at straws.
Socialism. The root of the "popularity" of Socialism is envy. Mainly
the Elite-wannabees are envious of the fruits of other people's labor. They want the fruits, but don't want to do the labor. (In many cases,
the labor is simply beyond their ability.) And, because of their need
to feel "elite" don't feel as though they should have to work for those fruits. They feel that they are entitled to them.
I always invite those "green" Lefties to visit Henry Ford Museum.
We've corrected some of those issues: better batteries, better roads.
But the cold still causes chemical batteries to lose power. Darn
reality keeps getting in the way of the leftie Narrative.
I always invite those "green" Lefties to visit Henry Ford Museum.
What batteries do they use? The same ones we use today in most electric cars.
Why did we stop making electric cars? Because they didn't have the
range to get to the next town on the roads they had. Also, those cars didn't work well in cold climates.
Darn
reality keeps getting in the way of the leftie Narrative.
I believe I did.NO, you didn't... You are a RACIST.
Actually, I did. I'm not sure how countering Glenn Beck's propaganda
makes me a racist. You seem very confused.
Socialism. The root of the "popularity" of Socialism is envy. Mainly the Elite-wannabees are envious of the fruits of other people's labor. They want the fruits, but don't want to do the labor. (In many cases, the labor is simpl
beyond their ability.) And, because of their need to feel "elite" don't feel as though they should have to work for those fruits. They feel that they are entitled to them.
So, like all Lefties, they talk about trying to bring everyone up, but their actions are to take everyone down.
So what I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that gun-free zones
don't work but penis-free zones do. In other words, people who own guns are law-abiding citizens until they aren't, but people who own penises are guilty until proven innocent, right?
No your TAG line makes you a racist... An the only propaganda is theActually, I did. I'm not sure how countering Glenn Beck's propaganda makes me a racist. You seem very confused.I believe I did.NO, you didn't... You are a RACIST.
stuff you spread...
It is more accurate to describe H L Mencken as elitist than racist. - Larry S Gibson....
Socialism. The root of the "popularity" of Socialism is envy. Mainly t Elite-wannabees are envious of the fruits of other people's labor. They the fruits, but don't want to do the labor. (In many cases, the labor is simplI cannot disagree with this. Wealth redistribution, in general, has a basis in envy and wanting reward without any labor, or risk.
beyond their ability.) And, because of their need to feel "elite" don't as though they should have to work for those fruits. They feel that the entitled to them.
So what I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that gun-free zonesNo, I have never considered using a women's restroom so I have never
don't work but penis-free zones do. In other words, people who own guns law-abiding citizens until they aren't, but people who own penises are g until proven innocent, right?
drawn the same straw-grasping conclusion/comparison that you are here.
I would say this goes beyond conservative. The only thing that makes it
"conservative" are the far-leftist who believe it is a good thing just
because that is what they should think, and want to blame conservatives
or religious people, even if it would bother them personally if they
found themselves in a restroom-sharing situation.
So what I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that gun-free zones don't work but penis-free zones do. In other words, people who own guns are law-abiding citizens until they aren't, but people who own penises
are guilty until proven innocent, right?
It is more accurate to describe H L Mencken as elitist than racist. -
Larry S Gibson....
Mencken was anti-Semitic, a product of the times he lived in.
Hello Jeff,
Mencken was anti-Semitic, a product of the times he lived in.David Duke is anti-Semitic. As well as racist.
Is Duke a product of the times he lives in?
No, I have never considered using a women's restroom so I have never
drawn the same straw-grasping conclusion/comparison that you are here.
Mencken was anti-Semitic, a product of the times he lived in.
David Duke is anti-Semitic. As well as racist.
Is Duke a product of the times he lives in?
Nope. Being anti-Semitic is no longer acceptable behavior. David Duke is behind the times.
That doesn't at all mean that Mencken was correct or commendable in his anti-Semitism, and I personally think he was as despicable as Duke is for having those beliefs. However, society at the time was more accepting of those beliefs and he did not face the social stigma that Duke does.
It is more accurate to describe H L Mencken as elitist than racist. - Larry S Gibson....
Mencken was anti-Semitic, a product of the times he lived in.
On 04 Nov 2021, Mike Powell said the following...
No, I have never considered using a women's restroom so I have never drawn the same straw-grasping conclusion/comparison that you are here.
You know exactly what I'm asking: Why are people with guns presumed to be law-abiding for the purposes of gun control, but people with penises are presumed to be criminal for the purposes of trans rights?
If someone has the right to carry a gun wherever they please, shouldn't someone else have the right to carry a penis wherever they please?
Is this too tough a question to answer?
So was Henry Ford....It is more accurate to describe H L Mencken as elitist than raci Larry S Gibson....Mencken was anti-Semitic, a product of the times he lived in.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?You're seeing a pattern because you want to see, such a pattern.
You know exactly what I'm asking: Why are people with guns presumed to b law-abiding for the purposes of gun control, but people with penises are presumed to be criminal for the purposes of trans rights?It is not a valid comparison. Men are often accused of thinking with their penis. I have never heard of anyone being accused of thinking
If someone has the right to carry a gun wherever they please, shouldn't someone else have the right to carry a penis wherever they please?
Is this too tough a question to answer?
with an inanimate object. Child molesters are overwhelmingly male equipped. If these particular males were also always armed with a gun, your apples-to-rocks comparison might make more sense.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?You're seeing a pattern because you want to see, such a pattern.
I will scrutinize your statements and not through my conservative lens, but if find that your bending the historical past, then I will expose it as such. Even before I begin to analyze your statements, it is obvious you're painting with a such a large brush.
I know how you like to add the repeated phrase or comment at the end of your so called facts, perhaps this adds to your confidence?
However when you do this, it puts a target on your back. So be it.
No, I have never considered using a women's restroom so I have never
drawn the same straw-grasping conclusion/comparison that you are
here.
You know exactly what I'm asking: Why are people with guns presumed to be
law-abiding for the purposes of gun control, but people with penises are
presumed to be criminal for the purposes of trans rights?
If someone has the right to carry a gun wherever they please, shouldn't
someone else have the right to carry a penis wherever they please?
Is this too tough a question to answer?
It is not a valid comparison. Men are often accused of thinking with their
penis. I have never heard of anyone being accused of thinking with an inanimate object. Child molesters are overwhelmingly male equipped. If these particular males were also always armed with a gun, your apples-to-rocks comparison might make more sense.
No, I have never considered using a women's restroom so I have never
drawn the same straw-grasping conclusion/comparison that you are here.
You know exactly what I'm asking: Why are people with guns presumed to be law-abiding for the purposes of gun control, but people with penises are presumed to be criminal for the purposes of trans rights?
If someone has the right to carry a gun wherever they please, shouldn't someone else have the right to carry a penis wherever they please?
Is this too tough a question to answer?
You know exactly what I'm asking: Why are people with guns presumed to law-abiding for the purposes of gun control, but people with penises arIt is not a valid comparison. Men are often accused of thinking with their penis. I have never heard of anyone being accused of thinking with an inanimate object. Child molesters are overwhelmingly male equipped. If these particular males were also always armed with a gun, your apples-to-rocks comparison might make more sense.
presumed to be criminal for the purposes of trans rights?
If someone has the right to carry a gun wherever they please, shouldn't
someone else have the right to carry a penis wherever they please?
Is this too tough a question to answer?
It is a valid comparison. People who shoot other people are overwhelmingly people with guns.
It is a valid comparison. People who shoot other people are overwhelming people with guns.Some people believe there are only two sexes... male and female. That ignores people born with the traits of both. They exist and it is scientific fact that it can happen.
Many people won't accept that someone can be born as physical sex A but feel like they are sex B. There could be hormonal or chromosomal things that would explain that. If they reach a legal age and want to
completely transition from A to B, then they have become B.
It is a valid comparison. People who shoot other people are overwhelming people with guns.Some people believe there are only two sexes... male and female. That ignores people born with the traits of both. They exist and it is scientific fact that it can happen.
Many people won't accept that someone can be born as physical sex A but feel like they are sex B. There could be hormonal or chromosomal things that would explain that. If they reach a legal age and want to
completely transition from A to B, then they have become B.
What you are talking about are people who want to be outwardly the sex they weren't born as, but still want to maintain the sex they were born
as in the area where it counts the most. There are many psychological problems that would explain why they are like that, including multiple personality disorders and disorders related to childhood traumas.
Getting only half a sex change addresses none of those problems.
So, you are asking why I think it is wrong for someone with a untreated mental condition that affects their sexual being, and who thinks they
are a woman from the waist up but are really a man, to be present in a restroom where young female children might be present?
If you want to argue it is not a mental illness then fine... I also don't think it is ok for someone who is practicing an intentional deception regarding their sex, pretending to be a woman when they are in fact an intact male, to be present in a restroom where young female children
might be present.
You are equating them to someone who owns a gun. Yes, I can think of at least one person here that you might be able to convince that anyone who owns a gun has a mental problem, too, but I am not that one person.
So, no, it is still not valid.
Once people start coming out of the womb equipped with firearms and later decide they want said firearm hidden but not removed, so that they can appear to no longer be equipped with a firearm when they in fact are,
then we can circle back to this.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?
You're seeing a pattern because you want to see, such a pattern.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?But we *DO* see a pattern here.
You're seeing a pattern because you want to see, such a pattern.
The pattern is that everything Jeff posts is false Leftie Narrative completely unrelated to Reality.
But I think that everyone has seen that pattern by now.
Facts are facts, Ron. If they don't fit your worldview, you need to
change your worldview. Because trying to change the facts just makes you
a laughingstock.
Jeff Thiele wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-
Facts are facts, Ron. If they don't fit your worldview, you need to
change your worldview. Because trying to change the facts just makes
you a laughingstock.
Facts are facts, Ron. If they don't fit your worldview, you need to change your worldview. Because trying to change the facts just makes a laughingstock.When you changed the facts about the Democrat caucus, you said Kamala was the runner-up. Trying to change that fact didn't work for you, but
you're a respected member of the fido community, and certainly not a laughing stock.
Facts are facts, Ron. If they don't fit your worldview, you need to change your worldview. Because trying to change the facts just makes you a laughingstock.Lefties always project.
I know that I have a good laugh when I find some time to read your
drivel.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?You're seeing a pattern because you want to see, such a pattern.
I will scrutinize your statements and not through my conservative lens, but if find that your bending the historical past, then I will expose it as such. Even before I begin to analyze your statements, it is obvious you're painting with a such a large brush.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 167:50:50 |
| Calls: | 9,281 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (11,384K bytes) |
| Messages: | 467,394 |