Blacks, Mexicans, Gays and the Left hate American pride...this has little to do with the anthem.

[RDD_1210]

So you do claim your opinion is valid solely because you say so. Interesting.

Where are all these n*ggers protesting when white people are shot by police?

Where were all the honkies protesting when Blacks were blown away in their church? When they were being lynched? When their neighborhoods were being red lined and their equity vanished? When cops shoot them with impunity?

In South Carolina, the vote to remove the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds was passed 94-20 in the House and 37-3 in Senate. I'd say a substantial number of honkies voted to remove it.

White people aren't out rioting and looting when white people, or anyone for that matter, get shot by police. However, blacks do when blacks get shot and stay at home when whites get shot.

White people don't see endemic police brutality in their neighborhoods.

That's because we know how to behave.

Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, Timothy McVeigh, Donald Trump. All white guys. Would you like your children to behave the way they do?

That's the Mount Rushmore for Trump supporters right there.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you myopic or are those your core values?

So you do claim your opinion is valid solely because you say so. Interesting.

Where are all these n*ggers protesting when white people are shot by police?

Where were all the honkies protesting when Blacks were blown away in their church? When they were being lynched? When their neighborhoods were being red lined and their equity vanished? When cops shoot them with impunity?

In South Carolina, the vote to remove the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds was passed 94-20 in the House and 37-3 in Senate. I'd say a substantial number of honkies voted to remove it.

White people aren't out rioting and looting when white people, or anyone for that matter, get shot by police. However, blacks do when blacks get shot and stay at home when whites get shot.

White people don't see endemic police brutality in their neighborhoods.

Right...they only see it on TV when someone takes a cell phone video of it. Thank God for Henry Sampson...the Black guy who invented the technology for the cell phone.

I noticed you left out George Miley, a white guy, that was co creator of the technology for the cell phone.

 

[forkup]

-So you say that as long as no charges are put forward no crime can be committed? Like I said the use of the word let is significant. If he would claim, "they want me to do it" then an argument for willingness can be made. Using the word let shows that he knows that it's his position of power that lets him get away with it, not the victims willingness. Btw in sexual assault cases it is VERY common that no charges are pressed since it takes considerable courage to come forward especially against people of power. Furthermore, after this tape a dozen woman came forward claiming it happened to them and they were UNWILLING at the time.
- So when someone who suffers a personal tragedy and they act out angrily no empathy should be given? Or is it a person only has the right to grieve in the comforts of their own circle?

Since the ones that would have had to call it groping didn't, it means it wasn't groping. Using the word "let" could mean lots of things including consent. If I let you in my house, it's because I consent to you being there. If I didn't want you there, I wouldn't let you in. Sounds to me as if your argument is "they simply didn't want to say anything".

If their grieving involves playing politics, I question whether or not they're grieving. Acting out angrily is different than playing politics.

15 women have now accused Donald Trump of sexual assault
I called it groping. These woman gave a play by play. And you're right let can be used in a different context. The context you apply, doesn't apply to the quote. That's the good thing about tape, you can actually look at the context.
- Your argument is, if they let someone that means their willing. Using that argument would make every sexual assault case in favor of the assaulter.
-To your last thing I have to hope you are just arguing but not believe it. You doubt they grief the loss of their son????? Tell me why you think, me, you, Trump and millions of other people have a right to an opinion but parents who have lost their son aren't grieving for their son when they express theirs? In the end like I pointed out, Trump hasn't spilled a drop of blood for the US but he feels he has the right to attack people who have. Don't forget he choose to go after the Khan's. It was a political convention, dozens of people attacked him, but of all those people the Khan's were the ones he choose to feud with.
- Checking Patricia Smith's claims about Clinton and Benghazi
This happened when the Republican convention had a distraught parent speaking against Clinton."I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi. And I certainly can't even imagine the grief that (the mother of one victim) has for losing her son." Clinton didn't attack her. She denied her version but she expressed sympathy and at no point did she go after her personally or claimed she didn't deserve empathy.

Let, allow, consent, etc. all mean the same thing.

The context bullshit argument. If it's a true assault, consent didn't occur.

I don't doubt they grieve the loss of their son. However, when they play politics, they lose credibility. I believe every word I say or I wouldn't say it. That's why I don't play the context game. That's used when someone isn't willing to stand behind what they SAID.

At the convention, all those dozens of people weren't put on the stage and paraded around for political reasons.

Clinton couldn't attack her. Clinton caused the deaths of those 4.

-No it doesn't. Letting someone grab your pussy doesn't mean you are willing or consented to it. I'll explain by the quote. "I don't wait" means I don't wait for consent. This doesn't mean necessarily the person is unwilling just that he hasn't asked specifically.
-"They let me" doesn't mean the person is willing. It could just as easily mean the person is unable to fight back, either directly or by pressing charges. If you mean the person is willing, you would use "they want me to do it".
-"I question whether or not they're grieving" Your words not mine. What does credibility got to do with it. Yes they lost their son and they express their OPINION. Is their opinion less credible because they lost their son.
-As to you not playing the context game.... Guess what.
"If you let someone do it, that invalidates the claim of groping." You did do it in this argument.
-So at the DNC convention only the Khan's spoke out against Trump? Even you have to know that's a incorrect statement.
-Clinton killed those four people? No less then 7 probes tried to establish that all came up short.
Not for nothing it's also a deflection. Both Democrats and Republicans used grieving parents to speak against their political foe. Only the Republican candidate personally attacked in response.

If I let you do something, I've allowed it or consented to it. Perhaps you should look up what a synonym is.

You don't know what he means. You can only guess and it's clear your guess is biased.

I didn't use context. I used the meanings of words.

I didn't say she killed them. I said she caused it. You really have trouble with definitions.

Wow for somebody who doesn't do the definition game, you sure emphasise definitions a lot. I guess every rape victim that doesn't fight back at it's assailant isn't a rape victim at all. You convinced me.
Hell as long as it's Trump he should be allowed to do to woman wat he admitted doing. Since 15 different woman saying they weren't willing isn't enough to convince you that they were unwilling.

 

[Conservative65]

So you do claim your opinion is valid solely because you say so. Interesting.

Where are all these n*ggers protesting when white people are shot by police?

Where were all the honkies protesting when Blacks were blown away in their church? When they were being lynched? When their neighborhoods were being red lined and their equity vanished? When cops shoot them with impunity?

In South Carolina, the vote to remove the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds was passed 94-20 in the House and 37-3 in Senate. I'd say a substantial number of honkies voted to remove it.

White people aren't out rioting and looting when white people, or anyone for that matter, get shot by police. However, blacks do when blacks get shot and stay at home when whites get shot.

White people don't see endemic police brutality in their neighborhoods.

That's because we know how to behave.

Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, Timothy McVeigh, Donald Trump. All white guys. Would you like your children to behave the way they do?

They don't live in my neighborhood.

Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, any miscellaneous black thug. Would you like your children to behave the way they do?

 

[Conservative65]

Where were all the honkies protesting when Blacks were blown away in their church? When they were being lynched? When their neighborhoods were being red lined and their equity vanished? When cops shoot them with impunity?

In South Carolina, the vote to remove the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds was passed 94-20 in the House and 37-3 in Senate. I'd say a substantial number of honkies voted to remove it.

White people aren't out rioting and looting when white people, or anyone for that matter, get shot by police. However, blacks do when blacks get shot and stay at home when whites get shot.

White people don't see endemic police brutality in their neighborhoods.

That's because we know how to behave.

Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, Timothy McVeigh, Donald Trump. All white guys. Would you like your children to behave the way they do?

That's the Mount Rushmore for Trump supporters right there.

Pick any lineup of black thugs and it's the Mt. Rushmore of Obama supporters.

 

[Conservative65]

So you do claim your opinion is valid solely because you say so. Interesting.

Where are all these n*ggers protesting when white people are shot by police?

Where were all the honkies protesting when Blacks were blown away in their church? When they were being lynched? When their neighborhoods were being red lined and their equity vanished? When cops shoot them with impunity?

In South Carolina, the vote to remove the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds was passed 94-20 in the House and 37-3 in Senate. I'd say a substantial number of honkies voted to remove it.

White people aren't out rioting and looting when white people, or anyone for that matter, get shot by police. However, blacks do when blacks get shot and stay at home when whites get shot.

White people don't see endemic police brutality in their neighborhoods.

That's because we know how to behave.

I think your behavior in this thread says otherwise.

Telling the truth is misbehaving? Only to a black or a black enabler. Maybe that's why when a black chooses to get an education, the typical black says "they're acting white".

 

[miketx]

Thanks troll. I love you paying for my everything! Quick! Make another post about blaming everything in the GD world on Trump and racism!

You're welcome. I'm glad to help those that are less fortunate such as yourself.

I wonder why it is you sorry bastards have to lie continually?

Lie? I am glad to help people out such as yourself who obviously could use a helping hand.

You are a lying sack of garbage like all lib stains.

You can do better than that. Can't you?

Shit, you can't.

I mean, it explains a lot.

Typical lying double talking lib stain.

 

[Conservative65]

Since the ones that would have had to call it groping didn't, it means it wasn't groping. Using the word "let" could mean lots of things including consent. If I let you in my house, it's because I consent to you being there. If I didn't want you there, I wouldn't let you in. Sounds to me as if your argument is "they simply didn't want to say anything".

If their grieving involves playing politics, I question whether or not they're grieving. Acting out angrily is different than playing politics.

15 women have now accused Donald Trump of sexual assault
I called it groping. These woman gave a play by play. And you're right let can be used in a different context. The context you apply, doesn't apply to the quote. That's the good thing about tape, you can actually look at the context.
- Your argument is, if they let someone that means their willing. Using that argument would make every sexual assault case in favor of the assaulter.
-To your last thing I have to hope you are just arguing but not believe it. You doubt they grief the loss of their son????? Tell me why you think, me, you, Trump and millions of other people have a right to an opinion but parents who have lost their son aren't grieving for their son when they express theirs? In the end like I pointed out, Trump hasn't spilled a drop of blood for the US but he feels he has the right to attack people who have. Don't forget he choose to go after the Khan's. It was a political convention, dozens of people attacked him, but of all those people the Khan's were the ones he choose to feud with.
- Checking Patricia Smith's claims about Clinton and Benghazi
This happened when the Republican convention had a distraught parent speaking against Clinton."I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi. And I certainly can't even imagine the grief that (the mother of one victim) has for losing her son." Clinton didn't attack her. She denied her version but she expressed sympathy and at no point did she go after her personally or claimed she didn't deserve empathy.

Let, allow, consent, etc. all mean the same thing.

The context bullshit argument. If it's a true assault, consent didn't occur.

I don't doubt they grieve the loss of their son. However, when they play politics, they lose credibility. I believe every word I say or I wouldn't say it. That's why I don't play the context game. That's used when someone isn't willing to stand behind what they SAID.

At the convention, all those dozens of people weren't put on the stage and paraded around for political reasons.

Clinton couldn't attack her. Clinton caused the deaths of those 4.

-No it doesn't. Letting someone grab your pussy doesn't mean you are willing or consented to it. I'll explain by the quote. "I don't wait" means I don't wait for consent. This doesn't mean necessarily the person is unwilling just that he hasn't asked specifically.
-"They let me" doesn't mean the person is willing. It could just as easily mean the person is unable to fight back, either directly or by pressing charges. If you mean the person is willing, you would use "they want me to do it".
-"I question whether or not they're grieving" Your words not mine. What does credibility got to do with it. Yes they lost their son and they express their OPINION. Is their opinion less credible because they lost their son.
-As to you not playing the context game.... Guess what.
"If you let someone do it, that invalidates the claim of groping." You did do it in this argument.
-So at the DNC convention only the Khan's spoke out against Trump? Even you have to know that's a incorrect statement.
-Clinton killed those four people? No less then 7 probes tried to establish that all came up short.
Not for nothing it's also a deflection. Both Democrats and Republicans used grieving parents to speak against their political foe. Only the Republican candidate personally attacked in response.

If I let you do something, I've allowed it or consented to it. Perhaps you should look up what a synonym is.

You don't know what he means. You can only guess and it's clear your guess is biased.

I didn't use context. I used the meanings of words.

I didn't say she killed them. I said she caused it. You really have trouble with definitions.

Wow for somebody who doesn't do the definition game, you sure emphasise definitions a lot. I guess every rape victim that doesn't fight back at it's assailant isn't a rape victim at all. You convinced me.
Hell as long as it's Trump he should be allowed to do to woman wat he admitted doing. Since 15 different woman saying they weren't willing isn't enough to convince you that they were unwilling.

I said context game. I use definitions. Context involves twisting those definitions to say what you want them to say not what the definitions mean.

How many made claims against Bill Clinton only to be excused away by his supporters. Even when he admitted to using a cigar as a sex toy in the Oval Office then LIED about it, his supporters excused it away.

 

[RDD_1210]

You're welcome. I'm glad to help those that are less fortunate such as yourself.

I wonder why it is you sorry bastards have to lie continually?

Lie? I am glad to help people out such as yourself who obviously could use a helping hand.

You are a lying sack of garbage like all lib stains.

You can do better than that. Can't you?

Shit, you can't.

I mean, it explains a lot.

Typical lying double talking lib stain.

I'm thinking you can get to 30,000 posts before the end of the month. What do ya think?

 

[forkup]

15 women have now accused Donald Trump of sexual assault
I called it groping. These woman gave a play by play. And you're right let can be used in a different context. The context you apply, doesn't apply to the quote. That's the good thing about tape, you can actually look at the context.
- Your argument is, if they let someone that means their willing. Using that argument would make every sexual assault case in favor of the assaulter.
-To your last thing I have to hope you are just arguing but not believe it. You doubt they grief the loss of their son????? Tell me why you think, me, you, Trump and millions of other people have a right to an opinion but parents who have lost their son aren't grieving for their son when they express theirs? In the end like I pointed out, Trump hasn't spilled a drop of blood for the US but he feels he has the right to attack people who have. Don't forget he choose to go after the Khan's. It was a political convention, dozens of people attacked him, but of all those people the Khan's were the ones he choose to feud with.
- Checking Patricia Smith's claims about Clinton and Benghazi
This happened when the Republican convention had a distraught parent speaking against Clinton."I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi. And I certainly can't even imagine the grief that (the mother of one victim) has for losing her son." Clinton didn't attack her. She denied her version but she expressed sympathy and at no point did she go after her personally or claimed she didn't deserve empathy.

Let, allow, consent, etc. all mean the same thing.

The context bullshit argument. If it's a true assault, consent didn't occur.

I don't doubt they grieve the loss of their son. However, when they play politics, they lose credibility. I believe every word I say or I wouldn't say it. That's why I don't play the context game. That's used when someone isn't willing to stand behind what they SAID.

At the convention, all those dozens of people weren't put on the stage and paraded around for political reasons.

Clinton couldn't attack her. Clinton caused the deaths of those 4.

-No it doesn't. Letting someone grab your pussy doesn't mean you are willing or consented to it. I'll explain by the quote. "I don't wait" means I don't wait for consent. This doesn't mean necessarily the person is unwilling just that he hasn't asked specifically.
-"They let me" doesn't mean the person is willing. It could just as easily mean the person is unable to fight back, either directly or by pressing charges. If you mean the person is willing, you would use "they want me to do it".
-"I question whether or not they're grieving" Your words not mine. What does credibility got to do with it. Yes they lost their son and they express their OPINION. Is their opinion less credible because they lost their son.
-As to you not playing the context game.... Guess what.
"If you let someone do it, that invalidates the claim of groping." You did do it in this argument.
-So at the DNC convention only the Khan's spoke out against Trump? Even you have to know that's a incorrect statement.
-Clinton killed those four people? No less then 7 probes tried to establish that all came up short.
Not for nothing it's also a deflection. Both Democrats and Republicans used grieving parents to speak against their political foe. Only the Republican candidate personally attacked in response.

If I let you do something, I've allowed it or consented to it. Perhaps you should look up what a synonym is.

You don't know what he means. You can only guess and it's clear your guess is biased.

I didn't use context. I used the meanings of words.

I didn't say she killed them. I said she caused it. You really have trouble with definitions.

Wow for somebody who doesn't do the definition game, you sure emphasise definitions a lot. I guess every rape victim that doesn't fight back at it's assailant isn't a rape victim at all. You convinced me.
Hell as long as it's Trump he should be allowed to do to woman wat he admitted doing. Since 15 different woman saying they weren't willing isn't enough to convince you that they were unwilling.

I said context game. I use definitions. Context involves twisting those definitions to say what you want them to say not what the definitions mean.

How many made claims against Bill Clinton only to be excused away by his supporters. Even when he admitted to using a cigar as a sex toy in the Oval Office then LIED about it, his supporters excused it away.

I'm so sick and tired of people thinking that invoking Clinton is a catch all. It's a false equivalency, not to mention a deflection. let's assume that consensual sex between adults is the same as sexually assaulting woman, (which it isn't) It would still not address the simple cliche that 2 wrongs don't make a right. I also notice that you failed to address the premise that according to your "letting is the same as willing" theory, rape victims who don't fight back are not the victim of a crime. After all she "let him have his way"

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats have ruled and failed minority communities for 60 years, yet the spin is somehow its the fault of racist Republicans.

Correction: 9 millionBlacks are impoverished and 17.3 million whites are impoverished. Who failed that 17.3 million Whites...many of whom claim to be Republicans?

First, you suck at math. With that out of the way can you explain how you people have failed black communities?

 

[Conservative65]

Let, allow, consent, etc. all mean the same thing.

The context bullshit argument. If it's a true assault, consent didn't occur.

I don't doubt they grieve the loss of their son. However, when they play politics, they lose credibility. I believe every word I say or I wouldn't say it. That's why I don't play the context game. That's used when someone isn't willing to stand behind what they SAID.

At the convention, all those dozens of people weren't put on the stage and paraded around for political reasons.

Clinton couldn't attack her. Clinton caused the deaths of those 4.

-No it doesn't. Letting someone grab your pussy doesn't mean you are willing or consented to it. I'll explain by the quote. "I don't wait" means I don't wait for consent. This doesn't mean necessarily the person is unwilling just that he hasn't asked specifically.
-"They let me" doesn't mean the person is willing. It could just as easily mean the person is unable to fight back, either directly or by pressing charges. If you mean the person is willing, you would use "they want me to do it".
-"I question whether or not they're grieving" Your words not mine. What does credibility got to do with it. Yes they lost their son and they express their OPINION. Is their opinion less credible because they lost their son.
-As to you not playing the context game.... Guess what.
"If you let someone do it, that invalidates the claim of groping." You did do it in this argument.
-So at the DNC convention only the Khan's spoke out against Trump? Even you have to know that's a incorrect statement.
-Clinton killed those four people? No less then 7 probes tried to establish that all came up short.
Not for nothing it's also a deflection. Both Democrats and Republicans used grieving parents to speak against their political foe. Only the Republican candidate personally attacked in response.

If I let you do something, I've allowed it or consented to it. Perhaps you should look up what a synonym is.

You don't know what he means. You can only guess and it's clear your guess is biased.

I didn't use context. I used the meanings of words.

I didn't say she killed them. I said she caused it. You really have trouble with definitions.

Wow for somebody who doesn't do the definition game, you sure emphasise definitions a lot. I guess every rape victim that doesn't fight back at it's assailant isn't a rape victim at all. You convinced me.
Hell as long as it's Trump he should be allowed to do to woman wat he admitted doing. Since 15 different woman saying they weren't willing isn't enough to convince you that they were unwilling.

I said context game. I use definitions. Context involves twisting those definitions to say what you want them to say not what the definitions mean.

How many made claims against Bill Clinton only to be excused away by his supporters. Even when he admitted to using a cigar as a sex toy in the Oval Office then LIED about it, his supporters excused it away.

I'm so sick and tired of people thinking that invoking Clinton is a catch all. It's a false equivalency, not to mention a deflection. let's assume that consensual sex between adults is the same as sexually assaulting woman, (which it isn't) It would still not address the simple cliche that 2 wrongs don't make a right. I also notice that you failed to address the premise that according to your "letting is the same as willing" theory, rape victims who don't fight back are not the victim of a crime. After all she "let him have his way"

I'm tired of people making excuses for Clinton. He's not a catch all. He's an example of someone having done what you accuse Trump of doing then excusing his activities.

No one is saying two wrongs make a right. However, if you're going to accuse Trump, acknowledge Clinton did the same things you're accusing or STFU, hypocrite.

If she's raped, by definition, she didn't let him have his way. Pay attention to what words mean, idiot.

 

[Aries]

This whole thing has nothing to do with oppression, inequalities or cops killing blacks...even blacks know that cops kill blacks because they're defiant and resistant.
This has everything to do with the times we're in...the Left, the un-American's and barely Americans among us want to pretend that "old America" (great America) never existed. They would love for REAL Americans to forget how great this country was before it was infested with human filth.
Our flag represents many things such as history, heritage, culture, bravery, etc....When quality Americans wave the flag or pay tribute to it the filth see it as disrespectful to them and their desire for a new America.
This is so simple to see and understand. Like the statues that have stood for hundreds of years...they didn't suddenly offend them, the timing just happened to be right....they simply want rid of anything depicting old America and American heritage. It won't be long before they demand our flag never be used and or a new flag representing a "new America" be disigned....BANK ON IT!

Your confederate flag shows your true colors.
You're up in arms in defense of the American flag while you fly the flag of traitors who waged war against us.
You are so confused you don't even know what to defend.

 

[theHawk]

This whole thing has nothing to do with oppression, inequalities or cops killing blacks...even blacks know that cops kill blacks because they're defiant and resistant.
This has everything to do with the times we're in...the Left, the un-American's and barely Americans among us want to pretend that "old America" (great America) never existed. They would love for REAL Americans to forget how great this country was before it was infested with human filth.
Our flag represents many things such as history, heritage, culture, bravery, etc....When quality Americans wave the flag or pay tribute to it the filth see it as disrespectful to them and their desire for a new America.
This is so simple to see and understand. Like the statues that have stood for hundreds of years...they didn't suddenly offend them, the timing just happened to be right....they simply want rid of anything depicting old America and American heritage. It won't be long before they demand our flag never be used and or a new flag representing a "new America" be disigned....BANK ON IT!

It's all about anti-Americanism. The progressives have to push their Agenda wherever they can. Their paid protesters and pussy-hat marches aren't changing people's minds. So now they need to hijack that which is sacred to Americans: Football. Like all of their "protests", this latest one is also built on a complete lie. They are claiming the national anthem is racist because there is a verse about slaves being killed. Aside from the fact this verse is never actually heard, the verse is not racist in the least bit. It simply mentions how the British killed servants and slaves in the battle of a Fort McHenry. How is that glorifying killing slaves? It isn't, it's shaming the British for doing so. But hey, Kap said it's racist, so it must be, and the morons march on with pitchforks in hand demanding "justice".

 

[forkup]

-No it doesn't. Letting someone grab your pussy doesn't mean you are willing or consented to it. I'll explain by the quote. "I don't wait" means I don't wait for consent. This doesn't mean necessarily the person is unwilling just that he hasn't asked specifically.
-"They let me" doesn't mean the person is willing. It could just as easily mean the person is unable to fight back, either directly or by pressing charges. If you mean the person is willing, you would use "they want me to do it".
-"I question whether or not they're grieving" Your words not mine. What does credibility got to do with it. Yes they lost their son and they express their OPINION. Is their opinion less credible because they lost their son.
-As to you not playing the context game.... Guess what.
"If you let someone do it, that invalidates the claim of groping." You did do it in this argument.
-So at the DNC convention only the Khan's spoke out against Trump? Even you have to know that's a incorrect statement.
-Clinton killed those four people? No less then 7 probes tried to establish that all came up short.
Not for nothing it's also a deflection. Both Democrats and Republicans used grieving parents to speak against their political foe. Only the Republican candidate personally attacked in response.

If I let you do something, I've allowed it or consented to it. Perhaps you should look up what a synonym is.

You don't know what he means. You can only guess and it's clear your guess is biased.

I didn't use context. I used the meanings of words.

I didn't say she killed them. I said she caused it. You really have trouble with definitions.

Wow for somebody who doesn't do the definition game, you sure emphasise definitions a lot. I guess every rape victim that doesn't fight back at it's assailant isn't a rape victim at all. You convinced me.
Hell as long as it's Trump he should be allowed to do to woman wat he admitted doing. Since 15 different woman saying they weren't willing isn't enough to convince you that they were unwilling.

I said context game. I use definitions. Context involves twisting those definitions to say what you want them to say not what the definitions mean.

How many made claims against Bill Clinton only to be excused away by his supporters. Even when he admitted to using a cigar as a sex toy in the Oval Office then LIED about it, his supporters excused it away.

I'm so sick and tired of people thinking that invoking Clinton is a catch all. It's a false equivalency, not to mention a deflection. let's assume that consensual sex between adults is the same as sexually assaulting woman, (which it isn't) It would still not address the simple cliche that 2 wrongs don't make a right. I also notice that you failed to address the premise that according to your "letting is the same as willing" theory, rape victims who don't fight back are not the victim of a crime. After all she "let him have his way"

I'm tired of people making excuses for Clinton. He's not a catch all. He's an example of someone having done what you accuse Trump of doing then excusing his activities.

No one is saying two wrongs make a right. However, if you're going to accuse Trump, acknowledge Clinton did the same things you're accusing or STFU, hypocrite.

If she's raped, by definition, she didn't let him have his way. Pay attention to what words mean, idiot.

If she didn't fight back she did let him have his way. That's what you claimed at least. You have been trying to claim all the time that a person who lets something happen to them is willing. I've been claiming that is not necessarily true. People let something happen to them for other reasons. Fear and ashamedness being the ones I gave. No less then 15 woman came out and said that was exactly what happened. Yet here you are trying to say you believe that 2 wrongs don't make a right while the previous sentence was trying to make that exact claim. Oh and since you have now called me an idiot and a hypocrite. I think we should wrap this up. Mind I admit to being a hypocrite and even an idiot. Every person is on occasions. But I don't revert to name calling, nor do I try to deflect by citing another president, hoping that trying to share the blame somehow diminishes it.

 

[bodecea]

Obama was the one who really got the ball rolling on this epidemic of self-hating, race-card-masturbating, anti-American guilt. That's why I call that scrubbing-pad-headed, raccoon-featured, inverted-crucifix-nosed Obama the most cocksucking cocksucker who ever cocksucked a cocksucking cock in the cocksucking magical realm of Cocksuckistan. What a cocksucker.

My goodness.....cockroaches out of the woodwork.....

 

[Conservative65]

If I let you do something, I've allowed it or consented to it. Perhaps you should look up what a synonym is.

You don't know what he means. You can only guess and it's clear your guess is biased.

I didn't use context. I used the meanings of words.

I didn't say she killed them. I said she caused it. You really have trouble with definitions.

Wow for somebody who doesn't do the definition game, you sure emphasise definitions a lot. I guess every rape victim that doesn't fight back at it's assailant isn't a rape victim at all. You convinced me.
Hell as long as it's Trump he should be allowed to do to woman wat he admitted doing. Since 15 different woman saying they weren't willing isn't enough to convince you that they were unwilling.

I said context game. I use definitions. Context involves twisting those definitions to say what you want them to say not what the definitions mean.

How many made claims against Bill Clinton only to be excused away by his supporters. Even when he admitted to using a cigar as a sex toy in the Oval Office then LIED about it, his supporters excused it away.

I'm so sick and tired of people thinking that invoking Clinton is a catch all. It's a false equivalency, not to mention a deflection. let's assume that consensual sex between adults is the same as sexually assaulting woman, (which it isn't) It would still not address the simple cliche that 2 wrongs don't make a right. I also notice that you failed to address the premise that according to your "letting is the same as willing" theory, rape victims who don't fight back are not the victim of a crime. After all she "let him have his way"

I'm tired of people making excuses for Clinton. He's not a catch all. He's an example of someone having done what you accuse Trump of doing then excusing his activities.

No one is saying two wrongs make a right. However, if you're going to accuse Trump, acknowledge Clinton did the same things you're accusing or STFU, hypocrite.

If she's raped, by definition, she didn't let him have his way. Pay attention to what words mean, idiot.

If she didn't fight back she did let him have his way. That's what you claimed at least. You have been trying to claim all the time that a person who lets something happen to them is willing. I've been claiming that is not necessarily true. People let something happen to them for other reasons. Fear and ashamedness being the ones I gave. No less then 15 woman came out and said that was exactly what happened. Yet here you are trying to say you believe that 2 wrongs don't make a right while the previous sentence was trying to make that exact claim. Oh and since you have now called me an idiot and a hypocrite. I think we should wrap this up. Mind I admit to being a hypocrite and even an idiot. Every person is on occasions. But I don't revert to name calling, nor do I try to deflect by citing another president, hoping that trying to share the blame somehow diminishes it.

Not based on the definition of rape. So now you're telling me what I claimed and it isn't close.

I don't call you names. I call you what you are. If it's a "name", it tells me you think I'm right by doing so.

I cited Clinton to show how hypocrites like you yammer about one person then ignore it on others.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's all part of the Bolshevik plan to undermine the last standing opposition to communism.

By Jove, you've uncovered the Manchurian Candidate: Donald Trump!

By Jove, another lying libdouche.

You live in a backwards universe, where everyone who posts facts is lying, and only Trump is telling is telling the truth, even though his lies are easily fact checked.

I find it more than a bit troubling that Trump has come out more aggressively and strongly attacking black men exercise their first amendment rights in a peaceful and poignant manner, than he condemned the white supremacist marches in Charlottesville that killed three people.

According to Trump, the white supremacists were exercising their right to freedom of speech, but the black men, who haven't harmed anyone, have been told they are not welcome at the White Housr, and Trump has demanded that team owners fire them.

It speaks volumes as to the calibre of the man you are supporting, and where his loyalties lie.

 

[JQPublic1]

Democrats have ruled and failed minority communities for 60 years, yet the spin is somehow its the fault of racist Republicans.

Correction: 9 millionBlacks are impoverished and 17.3 million whites are impoverished. Who failed that 17.3 million Whites...many of whom claim to be Republicans?

First, you suck at math. With that out of the way can you explain how you people have failed black communities?

How about the Census Bureau's math... do they suck at math too, idiot???

 

[Nosmo King]

Where were all the honkies protesting when Blacks were blown away in their church? When they were being lynched? When their neighborhoods were being red lined and their equity vanished? When cops shoot them with impunity?

In South Carolina, the vote to remove the Confederate flag on Statehouse grounds was passed 94-20 in the House and 37-3 in Senate. I'd say a substantial number of honkies voted to remove it.

White people aren't out rioting and looting when white people, or anyone for that matter, get shot by police. However, blacks do when blacks get shot and stay at home when whites get shot.

White people don't see endemic police brutality in their neighborhoods.

That's because we know how to behave.

Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, Timothy McVeigh, Donald Trump. All white guys. Would you like your children to behave the way they do?

They don't live in my neighborhood.

Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, any miscellaneous black thug. Would you like your children to behave the way they do?

Trayvon? Hoodie wearing, Skittle buying young man? Better him than the Barney Fife wannabe who capped him!