The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:35 pm

So you are asking people to predict the future then. Ok.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Dalek Prime » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:52 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:35 pm
So you are asking people to predict the future then. Ok.
I do agree with him that we go in circles, historically, and that there are back and forth shifts in human forces that cant be sustained forever, so there is ebb and flow.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:48 am

This Fuckin' PC.

A LA College student wanted to distribute the US Constitution in Campus but was told he can only do that within the two-car-park-size space allocated for free speech. :shock: :shock:
In the FUTURE, they will allow free speech in the cubicles and eventually banned.

WTF is going on with Americans and the USA?
It is the same here where I am hounded by posters in their attempts to stop me from expressing my argued and justified views [not breaking any stated rules here].
It is this sort of things that happened everywhere that enable the PC'ers to get more beholden to do their dirty evil things.

Fortunately, the student sued the college and won.
The college has to open to whole college for free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy2XaW28ye4

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:48 am
This Fuckin' PC.

A LA College student wanted to distribute the US Constitution in Campus but was told he can only do that within the two-car-park-size space allocated for free speech. :shock: :shock:
In the FUTURE, they will allow free speech in the cubicles and eventually banned.

WTF is going on with Americans and the USA?
It is the same here where I am hounded by posters in their attempts to stop me from expressing my argued and justified views [not breaking any stated rules here].
It is this sort of things that happened everywhere that enable the PC'ers to get more beholden to do their dirty evil things.

Fortunately, the student sued the college and won.
The college has to open to whole college for free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy2XaW28ye4
They are fascists, and that's what fascists do.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:35 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:48 am
This Fuckin' PC.

A LA College student wanted to distribute the US Constitution in Campus but was told he can only do that within the two-car-park-size space allocated for free speech. :shock: :shock:
In the FUTURE, they will allow free speech in the cubicles and eventually banned.

WTF is going on with Americans and the USA?
It is the same here where I am hounded by posters in their attempts to stop me from expressing my argued and justified views [not breaking any stated rules here].
It is this sort of things that happened everywhere that enable the PC'ers to get more beholden to do their dirty evil things.

Fortunately, the student sued the college and won.
The college has to open to whole college for free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy2XaW28ye4
They are fascists, and that's what fascists do.
Yes same ethos as the fascists;
The Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale commonly called the Blackshirts , was originally the paramilitary wing of the National Fascist Party and, after 1923, an all-volunteer militia of the Kingdom of Italy. Its members were distinguished by their black uniforms (modelled on those of the Arditi, Italy's elite troops of World War I) and their loyalty to Benito Mussolini, the Duce (leader) of Fascism, to whom they swore an oath. The founders of the paramilitary groups were nationalist intellectuals, former army officers and young landowners opposing peasants' and country labourers' unions.

Their methods became harsher as Mussolini's power grew, and they used violence and intimidation against Mussolini's opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts
These low self-esteem insecure fascist cowards who fear rational arguments!

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4987
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:41 am

commonsense wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:39 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:31 pm
It's a bit difficult to discuss it with you when you don't understand what it is, and ignore it when it's explained to you.
I must apologize for causing these problems. I haven’t been trolling, but I have been playing “devil’s advocate” in order to nudge the discussion back to the future (no pun intended). Unfortunately, that tack has given off the impression that I know nothing of which I’m talking.

As Veggie astutely pointed out, I ignored explanations of PC and anti-PC. I had hoped that the discussion would focus on the future of PC rather than its agenda, per se.

I’ve paid little attention to posts other than those by Judaka, -1-, JohnDoe, and HQ. Other than these four, there have been none who’ve prognosticated anything about the future. The rest are stuck in the present at best.

What follows is nothing new for me; this has been my opinion all along:

PC, per Wikipedia, is a movement to avoid language, policies and actions that may (or may not) be offensive to certain disadvantaged, at least in the minds of PC’ers, minority groups.

What PC does is it censors language, policies and behaviors that it deems offensive. In other words, PC obstructs freedom of speech along with the freedom to engage in policies and actions of one’s own choosing.

The consequences of PC are seen in our news, our courts, our schools, our entertainment and our public bathrooms.

The Anti-PC backlash calls out this agenda for being excessive and unwarranted.

Worst of all, insofar as thought and language are interdependent, PC is a movement that relies on mind control to bring about its agenda.

And that's the way it is.

What it will be will be shaped by a battle between the growth of the PC culture and the strong pushback it garners. For that reason, I see PC as a cyclical movement, as the pendulum swings, so it were.
Read the bottom portion, and you will have your prediction of the future.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by fooloso4 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:56 pm

PC is not just a left wing abuse.

See the Disinvitation Database compiled by the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):
https://www.thefire.org/resources/disin ... -database/

It list speakers from both the right and the left who have been disrupted or disinvited.
According to a FIRE report from February, although a majority of disinvitation attempts come from the left against the right, a greater proportion of attempts to shut down speakers are successful when they come from the right than from the left — 55 percent versus 33 percent. The sheer quantity of attempts to limit speech on campus would suggest that left-wing political correctness is more prevalent, but right-wing PC is more effective.

At issue here is not whether you agree with any of these positions. At issue, rather, is that while we assume the most dangerous thing you can say on a college campus is something like "There’s no such thing as rape culture," the consequences of doing so — of defying left-wing political correctness — pale in comparison to what happens when someone says something like mass shootings are perpetuated by "the white supremacist patriarchy." At Drexel University, George Ciccariello-Maher was placed on leave after receiving death threats, and eventually driven to resign, for saying exactly that.
(https://www.chronicle.com/article/Poli ... un/242143)
Conservatives were completely outraged last week after "Saturday Night Live" cast member Pete Davidson mocked then-candidate — now Congressman-elect — Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) for wearing an eye patch as the result of an injury he sustained as a military service member.
The National Republican Congression Committee condemned the joke, saying: "Pete Davidson and NBC should immediately apologize to Dan, and to the millions of veterans and military families who tune in every weekend — because they're not laughing." Fox News' Laura Ingraham lashed out, saying of Davidson on Twitter: "How long do you think this 'comic' & the writer responsible for this disgrace would last in @us_navyseals training?"



Trump has frequently demonized NFL players who kneel during the national anthem — which is a quintessential example of trying to enforce a certain form of "political correctness."
https://www.salon.com/2018/11/14/politi ... t_partner/
But a data analysis from March by the director of Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project suggests that this “crisis” is more than a little overblown. There have been relatively few incidents of speech being squelched on college campuses, and there’s in fact limited evidence that conservatives are being unfairly targeted.

...

The raw numbers here should already raise questions about the so-called political correctness epidemic. According to the Department of Education, there are 4,583 colleges and universities in the United States (including two- and four-year institutions). The fact that there were roughly only 60 incidents in the past two years suggests that free speech crises are extremely rare events and don’t define university life in the way that critics suggest.

Moreover, there’s a consistent pattern in the data when it comes to conservatives — one that tells a different story than you hear among free speech panickers.

“Most of the incidents where presumptively conservative speech has been interrupted or squelched in the last two or three years seem to involve the same few speakers: Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray, and Ann Coulter ,” Sanford Ungar, the project’s director, writes. “In some instances, they seem to invite, and delight in, disruption.”

What Ungar is suggesting here is that the “campus free speech” crisis is somewhat manufactured. Conservative student groups invite speakers famous for offensive and racially charged speech — all of the above speakers fit that bill — in a deliberate attempt to provoke the campus left. In other words, they’re trolling. When students react by protesting or disrupting the event, the conservatives use it as proof that there’s real intolerance for conservative ideas.

The other key thing that emerges from the Georgetown data, according to Ungar, is that these protests and disruptions don’t just target the right. “Our data also include many incidents, generally less well-publicized, where lower-profile scholars, speakers, or students who could be considered to be on the left have been silenced or shut down,” he writes.

Examples include Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s commencement speech being canceled after receiving death threats for criticizing President Donald Trump and the president of Sonoma State University apologizing for allowing a black student to read a poem critical of police violence at commencement.

...

Jeffrey Sachs, a political scientist at Canada’s Acadia University, put together a database of all incidents where a professor was dismissed for political speech in the United States between 2015 and 2017. Sachs’s results, published by the left-libertarian Niskanen Center, actually found that left-wing professors were more frequently dismissed for their speech than conservative ones:

...

Some campus free speech critics, I suspect, aren’t operating in good faith. For them, the entire debate is a way to attack universities as hopelessly and dangerously liberal — to undermine higher education for nakedly partisan reasons.

Indeed, four Republican-controlled state governments have set up new rules for political speech in public universities in response to concerns about free speech. At least seven other state legislatures are considering doing the same, efforts that the New York Times reports are “funded in part by big-money Republican donors” in a “growing and well-organized campaign that has put academia squarely in the crosshairs of the American right.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... georgetown


Most right-wing critiques ... are far more apocalyptic—some have unironically proposed state laws that define how universities are and are not allowed to govern themselves in the name of defending free speech.



At Texas A&M, Tommy Curry, a black professor, was driven from his home with his family after his controversial remarks on violence and race drew the attention of American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher; singling out left-wing college professors is a frequent source of content at Steve Bannon’s Breitbart News. The former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick cannot find employment in the the National Football League after his protests against police brutality. A police union in St. Louis urged members to bombard a local store owner with calls, after he accused some officers of misconduct, one of several recent examples of police unions attempting to intimidate critics. Black Lives Matter activists protesting the lack of accountability in lethal shootings of black men by police are routinely attacked as terrorists.



During the debate over the Iraq War, the Republican chairman of the House Administration committee was so triggered by French opposition to the ill-fated invasion of Iraq that he directed the cafeteria menus to substitute “Freedom Toast” and “Freedom Fries;” his Democratic colleague Barbara Lee, who voted against the war, received boxes of letters calling her un-American, treasonous, and far worse. In the years following that conflict, liberal and left-wing critics of the war were frequently called treasonous; in 2006, President George W. Bush told campaign crowds that “the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.”


GOP lawmakers have used the state to restrict speech, such as barring doctors from raising abortion or guns with patients, opposition to the construction of Muslim religious buildings, and attempts to stifle anti-Israel activism.



Trump’s threat to tax Amazon because its owner Jeff Bezos is also the owner of The Washington Post, which has published coverage critical of the president; the White House’s demands that ESPN fire Jemele Hill, a black on-air host who called the president a white supremacist; and Trump’s attempt to chill press criticism by naming the media an “enemy of the people” have all drawn cheers from some conservative commentators.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... es/541050/



Some history of the use of the term:
Until the late 1980s, “political correctness” was used exclusively within the left, and almost always ironically as a critique of excessive orthodoxy.



But soon enough, the term was rebranded by the right, who turned its meaning inside out. All of a sudden, instead of being a phrase that leftists used to check dogmatic tendencies within their movement, “political correctness” became a talking point for neoconservatives. They said that PC constituted a leftwing political programme that was seizing control of American universities and cultural institutions – and they were determined to stop it.



In truth, these crusaders against political correctness were every bit as political as their opponents. As Jane Mayer documents in her book, Dark Money: the Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Bloom and D’Souza were funded by networks of conservative donors – particularly the Koch, Olin and Scaife families – who had spent the 1980s building programmes that they hoped would create a new “counter-intelligentsia”.



PC was a useful invention for the Republican right because it helped the movement to drive a wedge between working-class people and the Democrats who claimed to speak for them. “Political correctness” became a term used to drum into the public imagination the idea that there was a deep divide between the “ordinary people” and the “liberal elite”, who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk. Opposition to political correctness also became a way to rebrand racism in ways that were politically acceptable in the post-civil-rights era.

Soon, Republican politicians were echoing on the national stage the message that had been product-tested in the academy. In May 1991, President George HW Bush gave a commencement speech at the University of Michigan. In it, he identified political correctness as a major danger to America. “Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States,” Bush said. “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land,” but, he warned, “In their own Orwellian way, crusades that demand correct behaviour crush diversity in the name of diversity.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4987
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:28 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:52 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:35 pm
So you are asking people to predict the future then. Ok.
I do agree with him that we go in circles, historically, and that there are back and forth shifts in human forces that cant be sustained forever, so there is ebb and flow.
Take this statement and realize it is an observation of natural law. Now take natural law, mimic it through technology and it becomes inverted but symmetrical.

The dualism of the PC extremes is a projection of the binary nature of sexuality in nature while the continual fraction of causes is a projection of the "branching" form through which multiple facets of nature exist.

The PC movement was inevitable by the nature of industry being a mirroring of natural law based upon an opposition to natural law. You become your enemy so to speak, and the PC movement is just a fractal effect founded in nature.

The difference is where nature exists through a cyclical unity, the technocracy is founded upon progressive opposition where this opposition causes contradictory state of being where one polarized phenomenon (PC right) opposed another polarized phenomenon (PC left) and the result is a continual atomization.

The same applies for the various sciences, religions, etc. However under natural law synthesis is inevitable. Male and female unite to form children, whether it be a complex organism such as an animal or a less organism such as a flower. One element joins to another to form stone and any dissolution results in a new synthesis (mineral to bone for example).

Modern technocracy inverts this unify measure through a continual dominance. Sex is a power play based around self pleasure and no children, and invention is strictly taking various elements and inverting them in to tools which manipulate time as a quicker scale than nature.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by fooloso4 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:37 pm

More oppressive PC behavior from the right. From today’s New York Times:

Bahia Amawi worked as a speech pathologist and therapist for children in the Pflugerville Independent School District, which includes schools in Austin, Texas for almost ten years. This year, her contract came with an addendum: She was asked to affirm that she would not boycott Israel during the term of the contract. She didn’t sign. Her paychecks were withheld.

“Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement when he signed the bill into law in May 2017.

More than a dozen other states have passed similar laws over the past four years.

In Kansas, the A.C.L.U. represented another education contractor who lost work after refusing to promise that she would not participate in a boycott of Israel.

In Arizona, the A.C.L.U. represented a lawyer who had a state contract to work with incarcerated people, and who did not want his purchases to support companies linked to Israel.

In Dickinson, Texas, a city on the outskirts of Houston, some people applying for repair grants after Hurricane Harvey had to sign a form saying that they would “not boycott Israel during the term of this agreement.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/s ... e=Homepage

Each of these cases were struck down in court, so The Futurology of Fuckin' PC remains an open question. But anyone who thinks the problem is leftist activists is seriously misinformed, or perhaps more accurately, disinformed.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Walker » Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:49 pm

Israel is a tiny country, all alone and surrounded by trouble.

Deep in the heart of Texas probably figures the little fellers need some friends in the world.

Old Texas was so independent thinking and isolated in its bigness that it was often considered to be a separate country and that thinking still lingers on through the generations.

Kind of like California is now, but in a different way.

California and Texas are the two biggies.
One going one way, the other going another way.

Did you know that Carlos Slim is a big voice in the NY Times?

That ongoing relationship indicates that the futurology of PC is money-hungry media, which conditions populations to accept robotic remixing as music, thus prepping us for the future, in which the money-hungry media acts as mouthpieces for big money.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by fooloso4 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:22 pm

Walker:
Did you know that Carlos Slim is a big voice in the NY Times?
I had to look him up. It seems likely that much money would buy a big voice, but I do not know how he has influenced them. From a financial perspective he should be happy because the Times is doing very well with its strong editorial stance against Trump, who ironically has done a great deal to help what he calls the “failed New York Times” thrive.
That ongoing relationship indicates that the futurology of PC is money-hungry media, which conditions populations to accept robotic remixing as music, thus prepping us for the future, in which the money-hungry media acts as mouthpieces for big money.
I agree to some degree, and despite the efforts of some to paint it as if it were all one sided, that is a false picture. One troubling consequence is that when people pick sides the truth suffers. The truth becomes a matter of either whatever one wants to believe or our truth versus their lies. I do think, though, that there are still journalists with integrity who value the truth.

There is another influence that should not be overlooked - Russian disinformation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/p ... -news.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opin ... tions.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/opin ... ation.html
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/1 ... aways.html

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Walker » Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:42 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:22 pm
Walker:
Did you know that Carlos Slim is a big voice in the NY Times?
I had to look him up. It seems likely that much money would buy a big voice, but I do not know how he has influenced them. From a financial perspective he should be happy because the Times is doing very well with its strong editorial stance against Trump, who ironically has done a great deal to help what he calls the “failed New York Times” thrive.
“In 2008, the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, saved the Timesfrom bankruptcy. When that guy saves your company, you dance to his tune. So it’s worth mentioning that Slim’s fortune depends on tens of millions of Mexicans living in the United States, preferably illegally.”

“Frequently listed as the richest man in the world, Slim acquired his fortune through a corrupt inside deal giving him a monopoly on telecommunications services in Mexico. But in order to make money from his monopoly, Slim needs lots of Mexicans living in the United States, sending money to their relatives back in Oaxaca. Otherwise, Mexicans couldn’t pay him—and they wouldn’t have much need for phone service, either—other than to call in ransom demands.”


- Coulter, 2015
https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoul ... y-n2005713

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by fooloso4 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:42 am

Walker wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:42 pm
fooloso4 wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:22 pm
Walker:
Did you know that Carlos Slim is a big voice in the NY Times?
I had to look him up. It seems likely that much money would buy a big voice, but I do not know how he has influenced them. From a financial perspective he should be happy because the Times is doing very well with its strong editorial stance against Trump, who ironically has done a great deal to help what he calls the “failed New York Times” thrive.
“In 2008, the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, saved the Timesfrom bankruptcy. When that guy saves your company, you dance to his tune. So it’s worth mentioning that Slim’s fortune depends on tens of millions of Mexicans living in the United States, preferably illegally.”

“Frequently listed as the richest man in the world, Slim acquired his fortune through a corrupt inside deal giving him a monopoly on telecommunications services in Mexico. But in order to make money from his monopoly, Slim needs lots of Mexicans living in the United States, sending money to their relatives back in Oaxaca. Otherwise, Mexicans couldn’t pay him—and they wouldn’t have much need for phone service, either—other than to call in ransom demands.”


- Coulter, 2015
https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoul ... y-n2005713

Carlos Slim is a wonderful man. How do I know? Trump said so after they dined together at Mar-a-Lago:
… a lovely dinner with a wonderful man. https://www.thenational.ae/business/mon ... s-1.736192
Ann Coulter was quoted in the article you cites as saying:
When that guy saves your company, you dance to his tune.
What evidence does she provide that they dance to his tune? A single editorial on immigration from 2015:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/opin ... ation.html

She claims that:
The Times has become noticeably hysterical
You may disagree with their position but it is hardly hysterical. The editorial does not support her claim that they changed their position post Carlos Slim, let alone because of his influence.

Walker
Posts: 6846
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by Walker » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:21 am

Very weak rebuttals.

Coulter wrote a well-researched book on the topic that proves her position quite adequately.

And yes, the NY Times position on illegal immigration has reversed.

"Carlos Slim is a wonderful man. How do I know? Trump said so after they dined together at Mar-a-Lago:"
(How childish of you to not recognize typical Trump boiler-plate schmooze directed towards one of the richest in the world).

The Futurology of Fuckin' PC is the scoundrel's retreat into literalness, which is what fact checkers and lawyers do.

For instance, Pirsig didn't actually lose his marbles, and politicians don't take one thin dime from special interests.


High profile politicians were for strong border security before they were against it.
Are they functioning on the childish level of knee-jerk no to all that is Trump?
Or, is something else afoot, because they sure aren't functioning to protect and serve the citizens with their new, open borders philosophy.
Carlos likely has the ear of whoever is writing the talking points for the lock-step Dems.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: The Futurology of Fuckin' PC

Post by fooloso4 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:49 am

Walker wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:21 am
Very weak rebuttals.

Coulter wrote a well-researched book on the topic that proves her position quite adequately.

And yes, the NY Times position on illegal immigration has reversed.

"Carlos Slim is a wonderful man. How do I know? Trump said so after they dined together at Mar-a-Lago:"
(How childish of you to not recognize typical Trump boiler-plate schmooze directed towards one of the richest in the world).

The Futurology of Fuckin' PC is the scoundrel's retreat into literalness, which is what fact checkers and lawyers do.

For instance, Pirsig didn't actually lose his marbles, and politicians don't take one thin dime from special interests.


High profile politicians were for strong border security before they were against it.
Are they functioning on the childish level of knee-jerk no to all that is Trump?
Or, is something else afoot, because they sure aren't functioning to protect and serve the citizens with their new, open borders philosophy.
Carlos likely has the ear of whoever is writing the talking points for the lock-step Dems.

And yes, the NY Times position on illegal immigration has reversed.
Evidence?
"Carlos Slim is a wonderful man. How do I know? Trump said so after they dined together at Mar-a-Lago:"
(How childish of you to not recognize typical Trump boiler-plate schmooze directed towards one of the richest in the world).
It was a joke! I have no problem recognizing Trump's compulsive lies.
High profile politicians were for strong border security before they were against it.
It is not a question of strong border security it is a question of how the borders should be secured. You are right, they were for strong border security, they still are. What they object to is the idea that a wall can fix it, that Dreamers should be deported, and families separated.
Or, is something else afoot, because they sure aren't functioning to protect and serve the citizens with their new, open borders philosophy.
Who supports an open border policy? Or is this an example of what should not be taken literally and should not fact checked?
Carlos likely has the ear of whoever is writing the talking points for the lock-step Dems.
Is this another example of what should not be taken literally and should not fact checked?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests