Seabass wrote:Forty Two wrote:Why are you, and some others, so fucking abrasive?
You helped put an amoral, narcissistic, sociopathic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, fascistic, authoritarian shitbag in a position of immense power.
I agree he's probably mostly amoral, narcissistic, sociopathic, but I disagree on the racist, sexist and xenophobic comments. I would submit Hillary Clinton, the alternative, is also amoral, narcissistic, and sociopathic. So your vote would have helped put that warmonger and darling of Wall Street and the financial sector into office.
Seabass wrote:
So no, I don't give a fuck about your feelings because you clearly don't give a fuck about anyone else's feelings, or their wellbeing or safety.
I don't give a fuck what you give a fuck about. Just abide by the rules. I'm not the one who constantly starts shit here. That's certain other folks, and now you, that can't talk to someone they disagree with without behaving like you are.
Seabass wrote:
I feel ZERO obligation to be kind to you for the same reason that I feel ZERO obligation to be kind to a fucking NSDAP voter.
That much is obvious, and also not required. I don't care whether you're kind to me. There are very few rules here, and being kind is not one of them. I tend to like to be kind and gracious to others, and do not behave as you do, attacking those whose political views upset you. Just note that you are not in any superior moral or legal position here, so nobody has any obligation to be kind to you either. However, I'm not kind or cordial out of a sense of obligation -- it's just how I was raised.
Seabass wrote:
This will not change as long as you support Trump. Deal with it, asshole.
Deal with what? Your opposition? I welcome it. I much prefer to talk to people who oppose my views. I only find juvenile rantings like yours to be non-productive and less than enjoyable, because they're pointless. You're doing nothing more than lurching your head back and screaming at the sky.
Seabass wrote:
They are resoundingly condemned all around.
Your beloved dear leader sure as fuck didn't didn't condemn them.
Sure he did. He simply also condemned others too. And, that's not enough for you, apparently,because you subscribe to the Nathan Rambukana school of thought.
Right, you prove my point. A few ancient links amounting to a tiny, infinitessimally small fraction of my total posts is not proof that I am in a right wing bubble. The sites I usually cite are things like, oh, the new York Times, the Washington Post, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, CNN, ABC News, NBCNews, MSNBC, The Guardian, The Nation, The Spectator, The American Spectator, Forbes, Slate, Real Clear Politics, CNBC, Yahoo, Reuters, AP, etc. I've even cited Huffington Post, Alternet, and a variety of left wing material, non-American newspapers and other sources.
It's you who are in the bubble, because you refuse to go outside your left-wing, SJW box, to the extent you read at all.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
