CanucksCorner.com Forums

.

^ Why are you changing the subject Mondi?

... and hell, just the other day I conceded a point to ESQ + Micky

... and the day before that to HW.



Fuckin Dems getting tired of being the only ones out crying in the streets?

Mondi wrote: The Muslim ban, whether temporary or not, is racist, dictatorial, and very likely unconstitutional

Wrong.

Not racist because there are muslims of all races.

Not dictatorial because it's what the majority want (better screening).

Not unconstitutional because non-Americans do not have rights under the US Constitution.

And again, it's only "... until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Mondi wrote: You said endorsing BLM is more racist than denouncing the KKK. It was you who changed the subject. I asked you if it was problematic that the KKK was having celebrations re: Trump's election.

So, I think, you deflected my question.

Actually you were the one who "deflected"... my mind-fuck response was what you deserved.

You're a complete dick for trying to link Trump with the KKK after he publicly denounced them.

Or is this Opposite Day?

Mondi wrote: By making some sort of statement that endorsing one organization is A BILLION times more racist than denouncing another. I would say endorsing BLM is not racist, because BLM is not a racist organization. I would also say that your statement implies your view that BLM is a racist movement.

WOOOOOSH

Mondi wrote: Before something is proven, it is an allegation. And, the more allegations, the more likely a few of them have some legs, that is just common sense.

For the THIRD time: Whomever got elected was going to be surrounded by allegations.

Mondi wrote: Vagueness is all fine and good Strange. But, let's talk about the kinds of leaders who have campaign-style rallies whilst in power? Shall we?

Vagueness.

Did you see all this in your crystal ball?

Tell me, will it happen twice a week for four years?

Mondi wrote: Also, I can't spend the rest of the day going back and forth with you. Let's just leave it at, you certainly COULD write a long post with a response to each of those 8 points providing some (dubious) logic or evidence to refute the critiques.

You're damn right I COULD!

I can certainly understand why you're asking me not to do so.

You deal in lies, deception, exaggerations, and innuendo.

Shouldn't be necessary when every Trump supporter is saying "LESSER OF TWO EVILS"

Not sure why the bare facts aren't good enough for you people.

Every Trumper in this thread...

Mondi wrote:Have you met Griz?

Yup, read his posts: "Lesser of two evils".

Mondi wrote: And, let's be clear. The United States Constitution will not permit legislation that bans immigration based on a religious affiliation.

Just caught your edit.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... titutional

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... grant-ban/

Trump's temporary ban on Muslim immigrants from terror-related countries would be easy peasy...

Two evils.

One: Says rude things and says things you do not agree with. Say he may do things you do not agree with (and it is now extending into "thinking he may do things you don't agree with")

Two: Condones and embraces cheating in the electoral process.

Which is evil, speech or action? As an old punk D.O.A. fan, I can recite, Talk - Action = 0

I'm amazed by the thought police emerging from Camp Hillary.

Strangelove wrote:

Mondi wrote: And, let's be clear. The United States Constitution will not permit legislation that bans immigration based on a religious affiliation.

Just caught your edit.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... titutional

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... grant-ban/

Trump's temporary ban on Muslim immigrants from terror-related countries would be easy peasy...

......and the newly constituted Supreme Court would ensure it.

Oh the irony

Strangelove wrote:
Ummm... what part of

"Whomever got elected was going to be surrounded by allegations"

...

did you not understand?

Well, that statement is hard to understand. It's not a complete sentence. It lacks a subject.

Whom is similar to him or them. It is always the object of a sentence; if it were the subject it would be who, he, they. Anyway, since there is no subject in the sentence it's hard to make heads or tails of it.

Him got elected? Them got elected?
What does it even mean? Why are we here?

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see...

Topper wrote:Two evils.

One: Says rude things and says things you do not agree with. Say he may do things you do not agree with (and it is now extending into "thinking he may do things you don't agree with")

Two: Condones and embraces cheating in the electoral process.

Which is evil, speech or action? As an old punk D.O.A. fan, I can recite, Talk - Action = 0

Or, you could see it this way:
/

That was pretty well done actually Per


*355pm post *

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:
Ummm... what part of

"Whomever got elected was going to be surrounded by allegations"

...

did you not understand?

Well, that statement is hard to understand. It's not a complete sentence. It lacks a subject.

Whom is similar to him or them. It is always the object of a sentence; if it were the subject it would be who, he, they. Anyway, since there is no subject in the sentence it's hard to make heads or tails of it.
Him got elected? Them got elected?
What does it even mean? Why are we here?
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see...

But, Gee Whiz, man, if Hillary had won,

Bye, Bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
Them good ole boys were drinking whiskey and rye
Singing this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die

Everyone's a comedian.

Okay my turn.

Check it out Per... in Mondi's quote of yours truly it reads "Whoever"

... then for some Strange reason, after a quick re-read I decided to edit to "Whomever".

So yeahno, no excuses for Mondi!

Good example of the biased media that America rebelled against (Seth Meyers et al).

By the way...

Per wrote:

Topper wrote:Two evils.

One: Says rude things and says things you do not agree with. Say he may do things you do not agree with (and it is now extending into "thinking he may do things you don't agree with")

Two: Condones and embraces cheating in the electoral process.

Which is evil, speech or action? As an old punk D.O.A. fan, I can recite, Talk - Action = 0

Or, you could see it this way:
/

accepted and used misbegotten debate questions to gain an unfair advantage on her opponent.

Ahhh the girls from Brazile

Rex....lol, Rex

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... n-trail-16

Boasting about her expertise in the area, and her unparalleled experience, Madonna promised to give oral sex to any man who voted for Hillary Clinton. The threat did not go unheeded: all over the country, men went into hiding and trembled with dread. Some went so far as to vote for Donald Trump as the only guaranteed prophylactic. In fact, post-election analysis determined that the prospect of a service visit from Madonna, tied with a promise from actress Lena Dunham to leave the country if Hillary Clinton lost, were major motivators for self-respecting male Democrats to come out in support of Trump.

Then there was Bernie Sanders. It’s easy to sympathize with the Sanders campaign. After the way the Clintons treated him, it’s easier to understand why he honeymooned in Moscow (seriously). He may want to do that again. Early on, Clinton kidnapped all the Democratic super-delegates. The Democratic National Committee became an unofficial arm of the Clinton campaign. Donna Brazile, interim chairwoman of the DNC and Clinton mole, was feeding the Democratic candidate debate questions that she got from her connections at CNN. And former chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was practically running the campaign.

The final element I would like to mention concerns the greatest threat to the planet as we know it: global warming — the cause of causes for Democrats. Did Clinton even mention it? It’s funny how meteorological doomsday matters so little to Democrats during election campaigns, and so much after the votes have been counted.

and the Dems can't take any blame themselves. They are blaming the FBI. She says that when the FBI cleared her it did the most harm to her campaign.

How fucking delusional is she?