Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What did she say that would make her nasty?What she said at that time was nasty.
Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.He was saying that He didn't know she WAS nasty to him. How do you fucking morons not understand the concept of context? I thought you idiots called yourselves smart?
Either you're all on the autism spectrum and don't understand social aspects like context, are deliberately ignoring it, or just to fucking stupid to understand context when it comes to quotes. Take your pick.
So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?
Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.
Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?
Moreover, how can words be actions if they aren't acted on? That makes little sense. Oh way, the fallacy of inference.
You can't tell if asking a President to think before he speaks is "virtue signaling" or "moral preening"? That's because it's neither.
No, I was referring to your comments, not his.
After all the things people have said and/or done to him and his family, I can't blame him for sometimes (or most of the time) dispensing with courtesy and civility. That however, does not mean I approve of him constantly doing it.
I voted for him, his actions, not his words. Experience tells me that politicians rarely act on what they say, rather they should be made to answer for what they have or have not done for the people who elected them.
I understood you were referring to my comments. You were attempting to use denigrating buzzwords to devalue my statement. "Approval" and "condemnation" are actions - expressed with words.
"Denigrating buzzwords"
You'll need to be more specific.
Seemingly, you are expecting the man to be perfect. Politically correct. Tame and civil to a fault.
Seemingly, that would be an unreasonable expectation.
What did she say that would make her nasty?What she said at that time was nasty.
Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.He was saying that He didn't know she WAS nasty to him. How do you fucking morons not understand the concept of context? I thought you idiots called yourselves smart?
Either you're all on the autism spectrum and don't understand social aspects like context, are deliberately ignoring it, or just to fucking stupid to understand context when it comes to quotes. Take your pick.
So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?
Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.
Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?
Moreover, how can words be actions if they aren't acted on? That makes little sense. Oh way, the fallacy of inference.
You can't tell if asking a President to think before he speaks is "virtue signaling" or "moral preening"? That's because it's neither.
No, I was referring to your comments, not his.
After all the things people have said and/or done to him and his family, I can't blame him for sometimes (or most of the time) dispensing with courtesy and civility. That however, does not mean I approve of him constantly doing it.
I voted for him, his actions, not his words. Experience tells me that politicians rarely act on what they say, rather they should be made to answer for what they have or have not done for the people who elected them.
I understood you were referring to my comments. You were attempting to use denigrating buzzwords to devalue my statement. "Approval" and "condemnation" are actions - expressed with words.
"Denigrating buzzwords"
You'll need to be more specific.
Seemingly, you are expecting the man to be perfect. Politically correct. Tame and civil to a fault.
Seemingly, that would be an unreasonable expectation.
You intended "virtue signaling" and "moral preening" as compliments? I took them as the limp insult I thought you intended.
What did she say that would make her nasty?What she said at that time was nasty.
Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?
Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
I agree. And then, afterwards, complimented her for her present behavior, saying that she would be a good ruler.What did she say that would make her nasty?What she said at that time was nasty.
Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?
Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
No, he personally called her nasty for what she said about him. I'm not sure why you feel the need to add additional, invisible caveats.
Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.
Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?
Moreover, how can words be actions if they aren't acted on? That makes little sense. Oh way, the fallacy of inference.
You can't tell if asking a President to think before he speaks is "virtue signaling" or "moral preening"? That's because it's neither.
No, I was referring to your comments, not his.
After all the things people have said and/or done to him and his family, I can't blame him for sometimes (or most of the time) dispensing with courtesy and civility. That however, does not mean I approve of him constantly doing it.
I voted for him, his actions, not his words. Experience tells me that politicians rarely act on what they say, rather they should be made to answer for what they have or have not done for the people who elected them.
I understood you were referring to my comments. You were attempting to use denigrating buzzwords to devalue my statement. "Approval" and "condemnation" are actions - expressed with words.
"Denigrating buzzwords"
You'll need to be more specific.
Seemingly, you are expecting the man to be perfect. Politically correct. Tame and civil to a fault.
Seemingly, that would be an unreasonable expectation.
You intended "virtue signaling" and "moral preening" as compliments? I took them as the limp insult I thought you intended.
I used those terms in conjunction with actions I observed from you.
No insult was intended.
What did she say that would make her nasty?What she said at that time was nasty.
Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?
Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
I agree. And then, afterwards, complimented her for her present behavior, saying that she would be a good ruler.What did she say that would make her nasty?
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
No, he personally called her nasty for what she said about him. I'm not sure why you feel the need to add additional, invisible caveats.
What did she say that would make her nasty?
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
What did she say that would make her nasty?
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.
Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.
After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.
A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?
Moreover, how can words be actions if they aren't acted on? That makes little sense. Oh way, the fallacy of inference.
No, I was referring to your comments, not his.
After all the things people have said and/or done to him and his family, I can't blame him for sometimes (or most of the time) dispensing with courtesy and civility. That however, does not mean I approve of him constantly doing it.
I voted for him, his actions, not his words. Experience tells me that politicians rarely act on what they say, rather they should be made to answer for what they have or have not done for the people who elected them.
I understood you were referring to my comments. You were attempting to use denigrating buzzwords to devalue my statement. "Approval" and "condemnation" are actions - expressed with words.
"Denigrating buzzwords"
You'll need to be more specific.
Seemingly, you are expecting the man to be perfect. Politically correct. Tame and civil to a fault.
Seemingly, that would be an unreasonable expectation.
You intended "virtue signaling" and "moral preening" as compliments? I took them as the limp insult I thought you intended.
I used those terms in conjunction with actions I observed from you.
No insult was intended.
There was nothing about morality in any of my posts. I guess thinking before speaking, and choosing words wisely, could be a virtue. If so, it's one I would hope to find in the leader of any nation.
In diplomacy and politics, words can mean as much as action, or even be actions. I don't know what you're getting at, unless it's, "I don't care what he says as long as I got my tax cut (or border wall, or Muslim ban, etc). He's the President, for chrissake! He's a reflection on us, and he speaks for us - particularly on a diplomatic journey. I don't think asking him to think before he opens his mouth is a big ask. I suspect Sadiq Khan already knows how tall he is.
Notice how he is talking about you Foxfyre, and not about Trump anymore? Cue that as a collapsing argument.This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
What other remarks was trump responding to when he made the statement? I don't think there were any other remarks ...
Tell me...just how many angles will you twist yourself into....as you attempt to defend a man who says and does things that are indefensible?
You logic...or lack thereof....are beyond belief. A silly lie told by a man who thrives in insults is making you look like the loyal subject of a King.
I don't know how you CANNOT be embarrassed at this point. Oh....and
I DIDN'T KNOW FOXFYRE WAS GAY? Did anyone here know that?
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
What other remarks was trump responding to when he made the statement? I don't think there were any other remarks ...
Tell me...just how many angles will you twist yourself into....as you attempt to defend a man who says and does things that are indefensible?
You logic...or lack thereof....are beyond belief. A silly lie told by a man who thrives in insults is making you look like the loyal subject of a King.
I don't know how you CANNOT be embarrassed at this point. Oh....and
I DIDN'T KNOW FOXFYRE WAS GAY? Did anyone here know that?
Notice how he is talking about you Foxfyre, and not about Trump anymore? Cue that as a collapsing argument.No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
What other remarks was trump responding to when he made the statement? I don't think there were any other remarks ...
Tell me...just how many angles will you twist yourself into....as you attempt to defend a man who says and does things that are indefensible?
You logic...or lack thereof....are beyond belief. A silly lie told by a man who thrives in insults is making you look like the loyal subject of a King.
I don't know how you CANNOT be embarrassed at this point. Oh....and
I DIDN'T KNOW FOXFYRE WAS GAY? Did anyone here know that?
I agree. And then, afterwards, complimented her for her present behavior, saying that she would be a good ruler.This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
No, he personally called her nasty for what she said about him. I'm not sure why you feel the need to add additional, invisible caveats.
He did compliment her, but that's not the piece that Trump is claiming is a lie.
Notice how he is talking about you Foxfyre, and not about Trump anymore? Cue that as a collapsing argument.In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
What other remarks was trump responding to when he made the statement? I don't think there were any other remarks ...
Tell me...just how many angles will you twist yourself into....as you attempt to defend a man who says and does things that are indefensible?
You logic...or lack thereof....are beyond belief. A silly lie told by a man who thrives in insults is making you look like the loyal subject of a King.
I don't know how you CANNOT be embarrassed at this point. Oh....and
I DIDN'T KNOW FOXFYRE WAS GAY? Did anyone here know that?
Are you trying to prove Jim right? Good job.
I understood you were referring to my comments. You were attempting to use denigrating buzzwords to devalue my statement. "Approval" and "condemnation" are actions - expressed with words.
"Denigrating buzzwords"
You'll need to be more specific.
Seemingly, you are expecting the man to be perfect. Politically correct. Tame and civil to a fault.
Seemingly, that would be an unreasonable expectation.
You intended "virtue signaling" and "moral preening" as compliments? I took them as the limp insult I thought you intended.
I used those terms in conjunction with actions I observed from you.
No insult was intended.
There was nothing about morality in any of my posts. I guess thinking before speaking, and choosing words wisely, could be a virtue. If so, it's one I would hope to find in the leader of any nation.
Then what was this little number?
In diplomacy and politics, words can mean as much as action, or even be actions. I don't know what you're getting at, unless it's, "I don't care what he says as long as I got my tax cut (or border wall, or Muslim ban, etc). He's the President, for chrissake! He's a reflection on us, and he speaks for us - particularly on a diplomatic journey. I don't think asking him to think before he opens his mouth is a big ask. I suspect Sadiq Khan already knows how tall he is.
This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.
The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.
I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
What? Wow, this mysterious context/lie is getting more complicated.
No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.
In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.
So....if I say...."I didn't know Foxfyre was Gay".....I can then turn around and say "I NEVER CALLED FOXFYRE GAY!"
You are okay with that....right.
You are twisting yourself into a Pretzel ...
Saying that you didn't know I was gay in response to somebody else's remark is a very different thing than saying that you called me gay.
What other remarks was trump responding to when he made the statement? I don't think there were any other remarks ...
Tell me...just how many angles will you twist yourself into....as you attempt to defend a man who says and does things that are indefensible?
You logic...or lack thereof....are beyond belief. A silly lie told by a man who thrives in insults is making you look like the loyal subject of a King.
I don't know how you CANNOT be embarrassed at this point. Oh....and
I DIDN'T KNOW FOXFYRE WAS GAY? Did anyone here know that?
I didn't know Foxfyre was gay.
