Calling someone stand-up a "Liberal" has become an insult...Have you noticed?

[BrokeLoser]

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

True story...HRC won Loon York, North Mexico (California), the vote from illegitimate classless un-American's including but not limited to; Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, illegals, men in dresses, pole puffers....etc, etc
Trump won the vote from legitimate American's who matter.
MAKE AMERICA AMERICAN AGAIN!

"Loon York"...the place trump came from.

Oh lots of stand-up people come from Loon York. Like North Mexico though, there tends to be far more filth there...simple shit!

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's just another term "conservatives" have twisted until it is practically meaningless. We are nearly all liberals in the classical sense but now it means things it never did because the right was coming out on the wrong side of most of the long-accepted definitions for various political terms.

/---/ You mean the way liberals have twisted the word racist to mean anyone who disagrees with them? You mean like that?

 

[BluesLegend]

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

It didn't seem to bother you that Bill Clinton failed to win the popular vote...we know but but but that's Different

Who told you that?

The Federal election commission, Clinton lost the 'popular' vote by 1,472,920 votes, choke on it.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

It didn't seem to bother you that Bill Clinton failed to win the popular vote...we know but but but that's Different

Who told you that?

The Federal election commission, Clinton lost the 'popular' vote by 1,472,920 votes, choke on it.

Link? So who got 1,472,920 more votes than Bill?

 

[BluesLegend]

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

It didn't seem to bother you that Bill Clinton failed to win the popular vote...we know but but but that's Different

Who told you that?

The Federal election commission, Clinton lost the 'popular' vote by 1,472,920 votes, choke on it.

Link? So who got 1,472,920 more votes than Bill?

Ah, the Federal election commission.

 

[Meathead]

This is addressed to "normal" folks of course.
Call your buddy a Liberal these days and you may get punched in the face. It's as if you called him / her an asshole or a bit@h.
Why do you think that is?

Where have you been? That started during the Reagan administration necessitating the term "progressive".

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

It didn't seem to bother you that Bill Clinton failed to win the popular vote...we know but but but that's Different

Who told you that?

The Federal election commission, Clinton lost the 'popular' vote by 1,472,920 votes, choke on it.

Link? So who got 1,472,920 more votes than Bill?

Ah, the Federal election commission.

The Federal Election Commission got more votes than Bill Clinton? Are you sure you read that right?

 

[BluesLegend]

It didn't seem to bother you that Bill Clinton failed to win the popular vote...we know but but but that's Different

Who told you that?

The Federal election commission, Clinton lost the 'popular' vote by 1,472,920 votes, choke on it.

Link? So who got 1,472,920 more votes than Bill?

Ah, the Federal election commission.

The Federal Election Commission got more votes than Bill Clinton? Are you sure you read that right?

I don't even have to mock that post its self mocking

 

[iceberg]

It's just another term "conservatives" have twisted until it is practically meaningless. We are nearly all liberals in the classical sense but now it means things it never did because the right was coming out on the wrong side of most of the long-accepted definitions for various political terms.

like

racism
sexism
nazi
hate crimes
climate change / global warming / insert new phrase here

liberals are the ones who constantly twist meanings and then get pissed when you call them on it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Who told you that?

The Federal election commission, Clinton lost the 'popular' vote by 1,472,920 votes, choke on it.

Link? So who got 1,472,920 more votes than Bill?

Ah, the Federal election commission.

The Federal Election Commission got more votes than Bill Clinton? Are you sure you read that right?

I don't even have to mock that post its self mocking

Again, Please provide proof that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote. He did have less than 50% of the vote, but that is not the same thing. Who do you claim won the popular vote against him in either of his presidential elections?

 

[Divine Wind]

Again, Please provide proof that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote. He did have less than 50% of the vote, but that is not the same thing. Who do you claim won the popular vote against him in either of his presidential elections?

Just like his wife!

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, Please provide proof that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote. He did have less than 50% of the vote, but that is not the same thing. Who do you claim won the popular vote against him in either of his presidential elections?

Just like his wife!

You dummy. Less than 50% doesn't mean he lost the popular vote. Get a junior high kid to explain it to you.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Federal election commission, Clinton lost the 'popular' vote by 1,472,920 votes, choke on it.

Link? So who got 1,472,920 more votes than Bill?

Ah, the Federal election commission.

The Federal Election Commission got more votes than Bill Clinton? Are you sure you read that right?

I don't even have to mock that post its self mocking

Again, Please provide proof that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote. He did have less than 50% of the vote, but that is not the same thing. Who do you claim won the popular vote against him in either of his presidential elections?

LOL go ahead post a link to the 'legal' definition of 'popular vote', you can't it doesn't exist. Hence I say you get less than 50% of the votes cast you lost the popular vote.

 

[Carter Malone]

No. It's the opposite.

Progress, moving forward, everything that personifies America.

Republicans are the party of big business, taking from the poor to give to the rich. Regressive, moving backward.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[BULLDOG]

Link? So who got 1,472,920 more votes than Bill?

Ah, the Federal election commission.

The Federal Election Commission got more votes than Bill Clinton? Are you sure you read that right?

I don't even have to mock that post its self mocking

Again, Please provide proof that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote. He did have less than 50% of the vote, but that is not the same thing. Who do you claim won the popular vote against him in either of his presidential elections?

LOL go ahead post a link to the 'legal' definition of 'popular vote', you can't it doesn't exist. Hence I say you get less than 50% of the votes cast you lost the popular vote.

Why would I waste more time with your ridiculous claim. If you choose to believe more than 50% is required to win the popular vote, then go ahead. It's not the stupidest thing you claim to believe. Bill Clinton got lots more presidential votes than any of his opponents. If you don't think that is winning the popular vote, then I can't help you.

 

[Carter Malone]

This is addressed to "normal" folks of course.
Call your buddy a Liberal these days and you may get punched in the face. It's as if you called him / her an asshole or a bit@h.
Why do you think that is?

Because in modern parlance, a "Liberal" is a Socialist authoritarian who uses emotions instead of logic. This is a total anathema to Americans who support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

No, not in modern parlance. Perhaps it is in RWNJ parlance. I've seen right wingers call people liberal because a burger joint forgot to put fries in their bag, It's used as a general insult by people who believe Alex Jones or Hannity crap.

Alex Jones is a libertarian. As for Hannity, I can say with almost 100% certainty that's you've never actually watch a full hour of his show. Most likely a minute or two of a clip they ran on CNN or MSNBC.

And please don't come back as say that you have, because I've heard that story too many times already, ya liberal.

Alex Jones. OMG. If you haven't yet, watch John Oliver's bit from last night. He was very "fair and balanced", didn't take pieces out of context.

Jones is truly crazy, certifiable but he's smart enough to fleece the fools.

Hysterically funny - unless you're a fan.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Pogo]

This is addressed to "normal" folks of course.
Call your buddy a Liberal these days and you may get punched in the face. It's as if you called him / her an asshole or a bit@h.
Why do you think that is?

Where have you been? That started during the Reagan administration necessitating the term "progressive".

"Progressive" had already come and gone a century before that. The Progressive Era (1890-1920)

There was a case, to which I've already alluded, of Reagan's VP deliberately misusing the term "Liberal"in his Presidential campaign (1988) "against" his opponent Dukakis, clearly a case of Lee Atwater (a disciple, as is Rump, of the infamous Roy Cohn) playing to the ignorance of the masses for emotional effect, and counting on not having the tactic washed away by a genuine definition, much as McCarthy did in his theatrics.

(I put "against" in quotes because Bush implied a political science term that describes the Founders of this country, was somehow a negative. Which kind of speaks volumes about Bush.)

But Atwater was only reviving and continuing an older deliberate conflation exercised four decades earlier in McCarthy's Red Scare days, when Republicans, shut out of the White House for five straight elections, started to disingenuously and deliberately conflate "Liberal", "Left", "Democrat" and even "Communist" into pseudo-synonyms for the purpose of tainting their political opposition, in a mass psychological execrise of Association Fallacy.

Anyway that's actually where the misnomer started. "Liberal" has never meant any of those, and still doesn't.

Only the gullibles who lined up for the snake oil sold by the Cohns and the Atwaters and the McCarthys seem blissfully unaware of those real distinctions, apparently content to wield four or five different words to mean the same thing, instead of actually finding out what each one means. This in turn dilutes whatever point they would have had into a puddle of rhetorical goo, full of sound and fury and pseudo-synonyms, signifying nothing. Apparently the OP is one of these lazy gullibles. It's so much easier than doing the work to actually know what the hell one is talking about.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is addressed to "normal" folks of course.
Call your buddy a Liberal these days and you may get punched in the face. It's as if you called him / her an asshole or a bit@h.
Why do you think that is?

Interesting thread. I am called a liberal on occasion by a couple people on here. Just goes to show morons know how to use the internet too.

 

[Divine Wind]

Again, Please provide proof that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote. He did have less than 50% of the vote, but that is not the same thing. Who do you claim won the popular vote against him in either of his presidential elections?

Just like his wife!

You dummy. Less than 50% doesn't mean he lost the popular vote. Get a junior high kid to explain it to you.

I never said it did, kid, but thanks for the insult. It's typical of far LWers like yourself.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, Please provide proof that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote. He did have less than 50% of the vote, but that is not the same thing. Who do you claim won the popular vote against him in either of his presidential elections?

Just like his wife!

You dummy. Less than 50% doesn't mean he lost the popular vote. Get a junior high kid to explain it to you.

I never said it did, kid, but thanks for the insult. It's typical of far LWers like yourself.

So what justification do you have to say Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote? Who got more votes?