Login

**Belsnickel** · 02-28-2018, 06:31 PM

(02-28-2018, 06:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Trump is actually pretty centrist.

I actually wouldn't say Trump is anything. He has ad hoc opinions and is not at all adherent to an ideology. Some things he is on the far right at times, then goes left, and other things happen to swing the opposite. His only true ideology is what benefits him most in the moment.

StLucieBengal · 02-28-2018, 06:35 PM

(02-28-2018, 06:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually wouldn't say Trump is anything. He has ad hoc opinions and is not at all adherent to an ideology. Some things he is on the far right at times, then goes left, and other things happen to swing the opposite. His only true ideology is what benefits him most in the moment.

Fair enough. He is governing as a conservative but I always see his own policy preferences to be more centrist.

**Vas Deferens** · 02-28-2018, 06:59 PM

(02-28-2018, 06:35 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Fair enough. He is governing as a conservative but I always see his own policy preferences to be more centRAL TO HIS SELF INTERESTS

FTFY

**BmorePat87** · 02-28-2018, 08:42 PM

(02-28-2018, 06:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Heck it’s in the first paragraph of the posted story.

Weapons ban, enviornmental craziness, supports the killing of babies, pro union..... Come on man.

DW is garbage. There hasn't been a single DW article you've provided here that wasn't ripped apart for being false or misleading.

Being against assault weapons isn't radical. Nearly 70% of Americans support that. 57% of Americans support pro choice policies. She's to be right of the average Senate Democrats according to that conservative tax group, so that's not radical.

What actual policy positions are you citing to call her radical. Quoting falsehoods from that dip shit Ben Shapiro won't answer this.

Note to mods "dip shit" is cool but if I remove the space and make it one word it isn't lol *******

StLucieBengal · 02-28-2018, 11:49 PM

(02-28-2018, 08:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: DW is garbage. There hasn't been a single DW article you've provided here that wasn't ripped apart for being false or misleading.

Being against assault weapons isn't radical. Nearly 70% of Americans support that. 57% of Americans support pro choice policies. She's to be right of the average Senate Democrats according to that conservative tax group, so that's not radical.

What actual policy positions are you citing to call her radical. Quoting falsehoods from that dip shit Ben Shapiro won't answer this.

Note to mods "dip shit" is cool but if I remove the space and make it one word it isn't lol *******

Non partisan tax Group does not equal conservative lol

She voted against banning late term abortions. That’s radical. Almost 70% of Americans favor banning late term abortions.

And I believe it’s against the CoC to work around the filter. Be careful.

**BmorePat87** · 02-28-2018, 11:58 PM

(02-28-2018, 11:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Non partisan tax Group does not equal conservative lol

She voted against banning late term abortions. That’s radical. Almost 70% of Americans favor banning late term abortions.

They're actually considered a conservative tax group. When you take partisan positions on issues, that makes you... partisan. Also, bans on ALL late term abortions (including ones to safe the life of the mother) are not radical. Radical is saying a woman has to die instead of getting a medical procedure to save her.

Quote:And I believe it’s against the CoC to work around the filter. Be careful.

I didn't work around it, just pointed out to the mods that a word that is allowed "shit" is censored with dip is put in front of it, in case they needed to change it. I couldn't care less if they change it.

StLucieBengal · 03-01-2018, 12:05 AM

(02-28-2018, 11:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They're actually considered a conservative tax group. When you take partisan positions on issues, that makes you... partisan. Also, bans on ALL late term abortions (including ones to safe the life of the mother) are not radical. Radical is saying a woman has to die instead of getting a medical procedure to save her.

I didn't work around it, just pointed out to the mods that a word that is allowed "shit" is censored with dip is put in front of it, in case they needed to change it. I couldn't care less if they change it.

Life of the mother happens less than .01% of the time. It doesn’t happen enough to allow late term abortions.

The real question should be what kind of low life parent doesn’t put their life on the line for their child. Why should we be protecting the people who are sick enough to choose themselves over our most precious resource.

The filter is a joke. I am surprised though at how many people will openly swear here on the board.

**BmorePat87** · 03-01-2018, 12:26 AM

(03-01-2018, 12:05 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Life of the mother happens less than .01% of the time. It doesn’t happen enough to allow late term abortions.

People are opposed to blanket bans, not bans on late term abortions with no medical necessity. You can ban them in all cases EXCEPT when it saves the life of the mother. Not radical wanting to save lives.

Quote:The filter is a joke. I am surprised though at how many people will openly swear here on the board.

Shit, people openly post racist, homophobic, islamaphobic, and transphobic comments. That shit surprises me.

**Vas Deferens** · 03-01-2018, 01:57 AM

(03-01-2018, 12:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Shit, people openly post racist, homophobic, islamaphobic, and transphobic comments. That shit surprises me.

Your list is lacking. Some pieces of shit aren't even pieces anymore and just end up painting the bowl of society. Need to deal with those problems with chemical solutions. Otherwise you'll end up ruining the dinner party.

StLucieBengal · 03-01-2018, 09:48 AM

(03-01-2018, 12:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: People are opposed to blanket bans, not bans on late term abortions with no medical necessity. You can ban them in all cases EXCEPT when it saves the life of the mother.[b ] Not radical wanting to save lives.[/b]

Shit, people openly post racist, homophobic, islamaphobic, and transphobic comments. That shit surprises me.

1. I guess the millions of babies (mostly minorities) who were killed will be wondering how that wasn’t radical to kill them.

2. I haven’t seen any comments of that nature.

**BmorePat87** · 03-01-2018, 10:01 AM

(03-01-2018, 09:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. I guess the millions of babies (mostly minorities) who were killed will be wondering how that wasn’t radical to kill them.

Solid nonsensical retort

Quote:2. I haven’t seen any comments of that nature.

I got you, fam

http://thebengalsboard.com/search.php?action=results&sid=5f7a51c162a65bf4798ed4d08177190b

StLucieBengal · 03-01-2018, 10:24 AM

(03-01-2018, 10:01 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Solid nonsensical retort

I got you, fam

http://thebengalsboard.com/search.php?action=results&sid=5f7a51c162a65bf4798ed4d08177190b

So its only OK to be in favor of saving lives when a baby dies to save an adult? Gotcha.

Nothing but good stuff ln that link. No -ists or -phobics in there

**Belsnickel** · 03-01-2018, 11:04 AM

I posted this in the meme thread, but I feel like it deserves a home here, as well.

[Image: 9Xl2qCYCYsUpD6dsJVpY5EuuUtG6PoynO3zWrkak...472703fe3a]

Hyperbolic and inflammatory rhetoric is toxic to any productive conversation. That's all I'm going to say.

**BmorePat87** · 03-01-2018, 11:21 AM

(03-01-2018, 10:24 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So its only OK to be in favor of saving lives when a baby dies to save an adult? Gotcha.

Nothing but good stuff ln that link. No -ists or -phobics in there

We went from addressing one small caveat to an inflammatory declaration about all abortion.

That's nonsensical.

StLucieBengal · 03-01-2018, 11:34 AM

(03-01-2018, 11:21 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We went from addressing one small caveat to an inflammatory declaration about all abortion.

That's nonsensical.

Carving out an exception for something that happens .01% of the time is also nonsensical

StLucieBengal · 03-01-2018, 11:38 AM

(03-01-2018, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I posted this in the meme thread, but I feel like it deserves a home here, as well.

Hyperbolic and inflammatory rhetoric is toxic to any productive conversation. That's all I'm going to say.

Like it or not that is exactly what it is. The fact you get upset at being called it should alert yourself that you are on the wrong path. If you do not want to be called that then stop supporting the mass death of mostly black babies.

Pro choice is just a dressed up term to normalize a horrible act.

**Belsnickel** · 03-01-2018, 11:45 AM

(03-01-2018, 11:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Like it or not that is exactly what it is. The fact you get upset at being called it should alert yourself that you are on the wrong path. If you do not want to be called that then stop supporting the mass death of mostly black babies.

Pro choice is just a dressed up term to normalize a horrible act.

I don't get upset by it because you are incorrect. Your use of intentionally inflammatory rhetoric doesn't bother me because I know it comes from a place of ignorance. It just lets me know that you are unwilling to have a nuanced and serious conversation about the topic. This is why I rarely engage with you in any serious way and why a lot of people avoid it. I don't know whether you do it to get a rise out of people or if you are sincere in what you say, but either way it tells anyone that would like to have a conversation rooted in reality that they aren't going to get that in an interaction with you.

**BmorePat87** · 03-01-2018, 12:39 PM

(03-01-2018, 11:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Carving out an exception for something that happens .01% of the time is also nonsensical

I disagree. It makes sense to protect people. It doesn't make sense to refuse to protect group A because you disagree with giving something to Group B even though protecting group A would give nothing to group B.

But this also has nothing to do with you jumping around from topic to topic in an endless attempt to not address your inability to show that Feinstein is "radical".

***michaelsean*** · 03-01-2018, 12:43 PM

(03-01-2018, 12:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree. It makes sense to protect people. It doesn't make sense to refuse to protect group A because you disagree with giving something to Group B even though protecting group A would give nothing to group B.

But this also has nothing to do with you jumping around from topic to topic in an endless attempt to not address your inability to show that Feinstein is "radical".

She'd be a radical fascist in Europe. Just ask Matt. Tongue

**Belsnickel** · 03-01-2018, 12:57 PM

(03-01-2018, 12:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: She'd be a radical fascist in Europe. Just ask Matt.

I know you're joking around, but she would definitely be in a centrist ideology on the global scale, possibly even center-right. I could see her fitting in with the CDU/CSU in Germany.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me