Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 am
Page 40 of 530
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:57 am
Z'is go here?
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:58 pm
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:40 pm
This would be...uhh...fun?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... ry-1060169
Jim Webb, the iconoclastic former Democratic senator from Virginia who served as Ronald Reagan's secretary of the Navy, is under consideration for Defense secretary, according to an administration official with knowledge of the process.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... ry-1060169
Jim Webb, the iconoclastic former Democratic senator from Virginia who served as Ronald Reagan's secretary of the Navy, is under consideration for Defense secretary, according to an administration official with knowledge of the process.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:14 pm
Isn't he gay? Don't see Trump nominating him. Evangelicals and stuff.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:22 pm
Webb?
At the risk of getting Lobster all hot and bothered, here he is with wife #3.
At the risk of getting Lobster all hot and bothered, here he is with wife #3.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:08 am
Props to the WSJ for calling Trump's dumbfuckery out.
Trump’s Cracked Afghan History - His falsehoods about allies and the Soviets reach a new low.
President Trump’s remarks on Afghanistan at his Cabinet meeting Wednesday were a notable event. They will be criticized heavily, and deservedly so. The full text is available on the White House website.
Mr. Trump ridiculed other nations’ commitment of troops to fight alongside America’s in Afghanistan. He said, “They tell me a hundred times, ‘Oh, we sent you soldiers. We sent you soldiers.’”
This mockery is a slander against every ally that has supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan with troops who fought and often died. The United Kingdom has had more than 450 killed fighting in Afghanistan.
As reprehensible was Mr. Trump’s utterly false narrative of the Soviet Union’s involvement there in the 1980s. He said: “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there.”
Right to be there? We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with three divisions in December 1979 to prop up a fellow communist government.
The invasion was condemned throughout the non-communist world. The Soviets justified the invasion as an extension of the Brezhnev Doctrine, asserting their right to prevent countries from leaving the communist sphere. They stayed until 1989.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defining event in the Cold War, making clear to all serious people the reality of the communist Kremlin’s threat. Mr. Trump’s cracked history can’t alter that reality.
Trump’s Cracked Afghan History - His falsehoods about allies and the Soviets reach a new low.
President Trump’s remarks on Afghanistan at his Cabinet meeting Wednesday were a notable event. They will be criticized heavily, and deservedly so. The full text is available on the White House website.
Mr. Trump ridiculed other nations’ commitment of troops to fight alongside America’s in Afghanistan. He said, “They tell me a hundred times, ‘Oh, we sent you soldiers. We sent you soldiers.’”
This mockery is a slander against every ally that has supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan with troops who fought and often died. The United Kingdom has had more than 450 killed fighting in Afghanistan.
As reprehensible was Mr. Trump’s utterly false narrative of the Soviet Union’s involvement there in the 1980s. He said: “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there.”
Right to be there? We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with three divisions in December 1979 to prop up a fellow communist government.
The invasion was condemned throughout the non-communist world. The Soviets justified the invasion as an extension of the Brezhnev Doctrine, asserting their right to prevent countries from leaving the communist sphere. They stayed until 1989.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defining event in the Cold War, making clear to all serious people the reality of the communist Kremlin’s threat. Mr. Trump’s cracked history can’t alter that reality.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:27 am
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:36 am
Why on earth does he need to prove to you he's not gay? You seem more concerned with his sexuality than the "evangelicals" that you like to cast in a negative light whenever you get a chance and generalize about even though I'm sure many evangelicals don't really care whether a person is gay or not. Stop generalizing about, and stereotyping, large groups of people. It only makes you look silly. Not "woke".
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:39 am
Seriously. WTF is wrong with you?
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:49 am
Feral wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:08 am Props to the WSJ for calling Trump's dumbfuckery out.
Trump’s Cracked Afghan History - His falsehoods about allies and the Soviets reach a new low.
President Trump’s remarks on Afghanistan at his Cabinet meeting Wednesday were a notable event. They will be criticized heavily, and deservedly so. The full text is available on the White House website.
Mr. Trump ridiculed other nations’ commitment of troops to fight alongside America’s in Afghanistan. He said, “They tell me a hundred times, ‘Oh, we sent you soldiers. We sent you soldiers.’”
This mockery is a slander against every ally that has supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan with troops who fought and often died. The United Kingdom has had more than 450 killed fighting in Afghanistan.
As reprehensible was Mr. Trump’s utterly false narrative of the Soviet Union’s involvement there in the 1980s. He said: “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there.”
Right to be there? We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with three divisions in December 1979 to prop up a fellow communist government.
The invasion was condemned throughout the non-communist world. The Soviets justified the invasion as an extension of the Brezhnev Doctrine, asserting their right to prevent countries from leaving the communist sphere. They stayed until 1989.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a defining event in the Cold War, making clear to all serious people the reality of the communist Kremlin’s threat. Mr. Trump’s cracked history can’t alter that reality.
Thank you dumbfuck;
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us- ... pectations
U.S. employers added 312,000 jobs in December, blowing past Wall Street’s expectations for an increase of 177,000 jobs.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:01 am
He doesnt need to prove anything to me. I have no idea who he is nor do I care. My comment was solely that having a wife doesnt prove you are straight. I know several gay men who are married to a woman for their own reasons.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:36 amWhy on earth does he need to prove to you he's not gay? You seem more concerned with his sexuality than the "evangelicals" that you like to cast in a negative light whenever you get a chance and generalize about even though I'm sure many evangelicals don't really care whether a person is gay or not. Stop generalizing about, and stereotyping, large groups of people. It only makes you look silly. Not "woke".
I made zero attempt to generalize or stereotype. Quite the opposite actually. I was pointing out the inaccuracy of stereotyping all married men as heterosexuals.
So take your own advice and relax.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:04 am
Nothing to my knowledge. A little back pain and my right shoulder is bugging me. Other than that, I am fine.
Just pointing out the trivial technicality that a wife doesn't mean you aren't gay, which is what I assume the intent of posting a picture of him with his wife was meant to do. If that was not the point of the picture then my bad.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:38 am
"Why on earth does he need to prove to you he's not gay?"IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:36 amWhy on earth does he need to prove to you he's not gay? You seem more concerned with his sexuality than the "evangelicals" that you like to cast in a negative light whenever you get a chance and generalize about even though I'm sure many evangelicals don't really care whether a person is gay or not. Stop generalizing about, and stereotyping, large groups of people. It only makes you look silly. Not "woke".
^^^
Thatbeingsaid, has anyone seen his long-form birth certificate?
I didn't think so
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:40 am
Not exactly sure why you felt the need to speculate about what someone does or does not do behind their bedroom door. Or with who they do it.twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:01 am He doesnt need to prove anything to me. I have no idea who he is nor do I care. My comment was solely that having a wife doesnt prove you are straight. I know several gay men who are married to a woman for their own reasons.
I made zero attempt to generalize or stereotype. Quite the opposite actually. I was pointing out the inaccuracy of stereotyping all married men as heterosexuals.
Your last two offerings are weird.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:49 am
Reading comprehension cleanup on isle 69!MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:40 amNot exactly sure why you felt the need to speculate about what someone does or does not do behind their bedroom door. Or with who they do it.twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:01 am He doesnt need to prove anything to me. I have no idea who he is nor do I care. My comment was solely that having a wife doesnt prove you are straight. I know several gay men who are married to a woman for their own reasons.
I made zero attempt to generalize or stereotype. Quite the opposite actually. I was pointing out the inaccuracy of stereotyping all married men as heterosexuals.
Your last two offerings are weird.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:03 am
LOL!!!Feral wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:38 am"Why on earth does he need to prove to you he's not gay?"IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:36 amWhy on earth does he need to prove to you he's not gay? You seem more concerned with his sexuality than the "evangelicals" that you like to cast in a negative light whenever you get a chance and generalize about even though I'm sure many evangelicals don't really care whether a person is gay or not. Stop generalizing about, and stereotyping, large groups of people. It only makes you look silly. Not "woke".
^^^
Thatbeingsaid, has anyone seen his long-form birth certificate?
I didn't think so
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:07 am
I'm relaxed.twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:01 amHe doesnt need to prove anything to me. I have no idea who he is nor do I care. My comment was solely that having a wife doesnt prove you are straight. I know several gay men who are married to a woman for their own reasons.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:36 amWhy on earth does he need to prove to you he's not gay? You seem more concerned with his sexuality than the "evangelicals" that you like to cast in a negative light whenever you get a chance and generalize about even though I'm sure many evangelicals don't really care whether a person is gay or not. Stop generalizing about, and stereotyping, large groups of people. It only makes you look silly. Not "woke".
I made zero attempt to generalize or stereotype. Quite the opposite actually. I was pointing out the inaccuracy of stereotyping all married men as heterosexuals.
So take your own advice and relax.
Your generalizing and stereotyping was about evangelicals. Not "the gays".
I am not religious, but I know many who are, and not a single 1 has ever said anything that makes me think they have an issue with gay people.
I was kinda just messing with you because you always group together and generalize about religious people or other groups you view as republicans. It'd be a good thing to move away from doing...some people on the right do it too much as well, so you're hardly alone. Just something to think about. Not everyone in a group you don't politically agree with is the same.
Think about generalizing about immigrants...and then think about generalizing about religious people....and then think about generalizing about religious people who are muslim....none of it is good.
All Muslims are not terrorists.
All evangelicals are not opposed to gay people.
All immigrants are not criminals.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:54 am
Look. Leawood made a comment (actually, asked a question), I believe mistaking Webb for someone else. I answered. And twocoach took that as an opportunity to make a weird and irrelevant commentary on society.
Guy's bizarre.
Guy's bizarre.
Re: Dumbfuck in charge
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:10 pm
I did no such thing. Learn to read and dont read more into it.MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:40 amNot exactly sure why you felt the need to speculate about what someone does or does not do behind their bedroom door. Or with who they do it.twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:01 am He doesnt need to prove anything to me. I have no idea who he is nor do I care. My comment was solely that having a wife doesnt prove you are straight. I know several gay men who are married to a woman for their own reasons.
I made zero attempt to generalize or stereotype. Quite the opposite actually. I was pointing out the inaccuracy of stereotyping all married men as heterosexuals.
Your last two offerings are weird.
I dont know why Leawood asked "Isn't he gay?" nor do I care. You'd have to ask Leawood about that. I don't know who this person even is, let alone care about their sexual preferences.
ALl I said was that having a wife does not automatically mean that a person is straight. That's it. No more. It was a take on what I perceived as the attempted use the photo as evidence of something. That's it. No more.
I dont give a shit what sexual orientation this person is nor have I made any attempt to discern that. If it turns out that he is gay then whoopie doo. I dont care at all. Good grief.