Cursed Political Content

  • Thread starter TexRex
  • 6,821 comments
  • 347,366 views
Screenshot-20230531-150307-Samsung-Internet.jpg


You can burn both. You can't break the law in order to do so. This is basic stuff.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
Screenshot-20230531-150307-Samsung-Internet.jpg


You can burn both. You can't break the law in order to do so. This is basic stuff.
Click to expand...
They REALLY need to make litmus tests for government positions since most of them have no clue what the laws are (and don't care).
 
McLaren
Joey told on himself. You don’t come up with that sort of thing unless you’ve been spending some previous thought on it.
Click to expand...
Alright, since commenting on this post yesterday, I've seen at least 3-4 more of this ******* weirdo's tweets and half of them displaying his obsession with "tranny semen".

Delete Twitter from the timeline.
 
TexRex
Predictable connie bitchfit is predictable.

FxjrqpaaYAMcgQE
Click to expand...
...in exactly what way? What does "suicidal" even mean in this context?

He says it's "definitionally" doomed to collapse. In what way? Scratching my head over this one doesn't seem to yield the answer. It's not that I'm trying to figure out why he's right, I'm just trying to figure out what point he even thinks he's making. The only thing I could come up with is this - the assumption that children need the influence of a male caregiver and female caregiver and cannot get that influence outside of the confines of the nuclear family.

Of course if he got that specific, he'd be asked to provide evidence. He has none, and then his whole point falls apart, so instead he keeps it vague. "Definitionally doomed to collapse", so vacuous, so presumptive.
 
Danoff
...in exactly what way? What does "suicidal" even mean in this context?

He says it's "definitionally" doomed to collapse. In what way? Scratching my head over this one doesn't seem to yield the answer. It's not that I'm trying to figure out why he's right, I'm just trying to figure out what point he even thinks he's making. The only thing I could come up with is this - the assumption that children need the influence of a male caregiver and female caregiver and cannot get that influence outside of the confines of the nuclear family.

Of course if he got that specific, he'd be asked to provide evidence. He has none, and then his whole point falls apart, so instead he keeps it vague. "Definitionally doomed to collapse", so vacuous, so presumptive.
Click to expand...
I get what it means. He's talking about that the extreme case of if homosexuality becomes the dominant coupling, it will be impossible for humanity to continue. Of course, that ignores artificial insemination and the like, plus the unlikely event where everyone becomes part of a same sex couple.
 
Populuxe
Tim Pool is the Nazi at that table, isn't he?
Click to expand...
That kind of lets the others off the hook if you're at all familiar with their views. He'd appear to be the Nazi enabler in this case.

Note their lib-baiting hand gestures and his sheepish expression.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
...in exactly what way? What does "suicidal" even mean in this context?

He says it's "definitionally" doomed to collapse. In what way? Scratching my head over this one doesn't seem to yield the answer. It's not that I'm trying to figure out why he's right, I'm just trying to figure out what point he even thinks he's making. The only thing I could come up with is this - the assumption that children need the influence of a male caregiver and female caregiver and cannot get that influence outside of the confines of the nuclear family.

Of course if he got that specific, he'd be asked to provide evidence. He has none, and then his whole point falls apart, so instead he keeps it vague. "Definitionally doomed to collapse", so vacuous, so presumptive.
Click to expand...
Me nodding vigorously as I read this.



Perfect. Absolutely perfect.
 
TexRex
Me nodding vigorously as I read this.



Perfect. Absolutely perfect.
Click to expand...

Although related directly to a cursed tweet on this page, as a general critique of modern day thinking on the right I feel this'd make a good candidate for the general "what is Conservatism?" thread if, indeed, those posting in this manner really are conservatives, no true Scotsman and all that. I think they are, because they oppose and resist societal change.

ScottPye20
Using big words doesn't make you smart!
Click to expand...
It does make your language sound very dry, however.

But I'm sure those close to Shapiro would know a thing or two about dryness.
 
Last edited:
Blitz24
I get what it means. He's talking about that the extreme case of if homosexuality becomes the dominant coupling, it will be impossible for humanity to continue. Of course, that ignores artificial insemination and the like, plus the unlikely event where everyone becomes part of a same sex couple.
Click to expand...
This is it....partly.

I guarantee he'd have a problem with a couple reproducing without means of IVF but who were non-binary, and brought up their kids to know about different genders apart from male and female.
 
Last edited:
Joey D
Basically, you can drive but choose not to and just expect your parents to keep taxing you around.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. That kid of mine that had that expectation ended up learning that walking is hard (once I had to tell my ex - the helicopter parent- that I was not gonna waste gas toting around a human being who was perfectly capable of 1: Walking 2: Getting his license and 3: Getting a job). The two that followed saw the precedent set and got their DL's as fast as possible.
 
Blitz24
I get what it means. He's talking about that the extreme case of if homosexuality becomes the dominant coupling, it will be impossible for humanity to continue. Of course, that ignores artificial insemination and the like, plus the unlikely event where everyone becomes part of a same sex couple.
Click to expand...

HenrySwanson
This is it....partly.
Click to expand...
I had considered this as a potential explanation for what he's talking about. But I think you're both wrong (a testament to how confusing and vacuous his statement was). The only reason I think you're wrong, and it's not a strong conviction, is because this explanation is even more absurd than the one I put forward. You could be right of course, he could be making that even more absurd point - but I don't think it's most likely.
 
Last edited:
They can always go to MAGA-approved Raising Cain's, I guess?

But hey, I boycott Chick-Fil-A because their chicken tastes like old gym mats while they boycott them because someone got a promotion to a meaningless job.
 
TexRex


Mental illness.

Of course while Moronn here is outraged now, Chick-Fil-A has had its DEI page up since 2020.
Click to expand...

The right is really on this social injustice warrior kick right now.

I heard someone refer to a rainbow baby (a child born after a previous pregnancy loss), and at first I thought it must be describing the crusaders of the right because they cry every time they see a rainbow somewhere.
 
Joey D
They can always go to MAGA-approved Raising Cain's, I guess?

But hey, I boycott Chick-Fil-A because their chicken tastes like old gym mats while they boycott them because someone got a promotion to a meaningless job.
Click to expand...
This hurts home hard, b/c I'm a simpleton who just likes both these places for quick, easy meals.
 
Last edited:
Northstar
Nope.



They were also named as one of the most LGBT-friendly companies awhile back.

The Chicken Chain That’s A Strong Advocate For LGBT Rights – Sdlgbtn

www.sdlgbtn.com www.sdlgbtn.com

Sadly at this rate I fear our right wing brother's and sister's are cursed to die dehydrated and starving. Unless of course they break down and just drink water and eat actual food.
Click to expand...

I had no idea. I remember back in Salt Lake when they were getting their first Raising Cain's that there were a bunch of people against it because the owner was anti-LGBT and pro-Trump or something. To me, it just seemed like really expensive chicken strips so I passed.

Popeyes will always and forever be the best fast food chicken place.
 
Started watching this nonsense....



....and was wondering something.

At around 3:40 he says that people at Vanderbilt Medical Centre "abuse children for profit". Is this covered by the 1st amendment? Could he be sued?
 
HenrySwanson
Started watching this nonsense....



....and was wondering something.

At around 3:40 he says that people at Vanderbilt Medical Centre "abuse children for profit". Is this covered by the 1st amendment? Could he be sued?
Click to expand...

He can say it but he also can be sued for defamation I believe. Ironically, banning the movie from being shared on Twitter, while limiting the outreach, might also prevent others from suing him.
 

Similar threads

HKS racer
White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country?
11 12 13
Replies
362
Views
18K
KSaiyu
KSaiyu
Max Powers
Funny Pic Thread VII - No swearing. No sex. No complaining. (READ FIRST POST)
1656 1657 1658
Replies
50K
Views
5M
Danoff
Danoff
B
  • Sticky
COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)
441 442 443
Replies
13K
Views
647K
TB
TB
White & Nerdy
Standardization of processes for requesting new content from Polyphony Digital
Replies
6
Views
819
thedeester1
T
photonrider
  • Locked
"Taking the FUN out of Gran Turismo and shoving it----
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
9K
doblocruiser
doblocruiser

Latest Posts

Back