Respect

Agreed!

Makes sense. The absence of respect is obviously no respect. So you don't respect peope you don't know.

This is why you'll never be good at PR/Diplomatic relations.

So we agree Clinton committed obstruction of Justice. This is a crime.

You should probably read this which details Trump's obstruction of justice. Yet, Mueller stated per OLC he cannot indict a sitting president. Here's the link that highlights the obstructive acts, the nexus, and the intent which outlines a case for the obstruction of Justice:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

Are you high...?

We just had a long conversation... It seems like you're starting over.

Nor do you. However, my conjecture was formed on the way in which you framed how you view respect in that one must be "worthy" which is absolute non-sense as worthiness is subjective to the beholder. You want everyone to care about what you think of them. I disagree with that.

"Did you read the whole comment, or just the part you quoted...?

The whole comment explains it quite clearly."

No, not remotely.

I'm starting to grow concerned on your grasp of reality...

No, reading isn't the issue, clearly as we're having this discussion right now.

It's just that none of it was true, so I want to see your evidence that makes the proof. For which, you failed to supply.

Still waiting for the proof - which you don't have. Lol, this is getting good. You say you play this "game" often. That you "win" often. I mean, sure, I guess getting a participation trophy is a win for some.

Keep cherrypicking though. Oh, thanks for the tip about my sentence structure. I'm not worried about it as I'm not writing a paper. I'm in the proverbial ghetto of the internet.

"Good Lord." Signaling again that you're religious?

xD Lol

"Remember...by your twisted, Bizarro, warped logic...any government official, anywhere, asking another government official, anywhere, is a "solicitation" of a "thing of value.""

Which is why you have the FBI lead the investigation.

"Mayor to City manager: "I would like you to do me a favor and draw up plans for a new park."

IMPEACH!!!!! IMPEACHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! He solicited something of value!!!!!!!!"

Uh oh, we're appealing to extremes...

"And then, of course, you can become immune to all investigation and prosecution if you simply commit your crimes while running for office, because then you can say "ah ah ah! I'm your political opponent! You can't investigate me!!!"

It's

Utter

Madness."

And then, of course, you can become immune to all investigation and prosecution if you simply
commit your crimes while BEING PRESIDENT, because then you can say "ah ah ah! I'm your PRESIDENT! You can't investigate me!!!

Fixed that for you. Yeah, it is madness.

So, why would you let a Mayor do policework regarding your opponent? That seems...

... like madness.

It's interesting you say that I got all haughty and started posting memes against people I didn't even know. It's funny, because I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the right and pointing (for the most part) that they do the same thing that the leftists do and are refusing to admit it. I see it now.

I see people being snobbish, arrogant, and straight asinine. When their shit crumbles, I call them out on it. I saw that the atmosphere here was extremely skewed right and pro-Trump. Yeah, I made some waves. Yeah I dared to come here, most leftists would sooner leave and retreat to their "echo chambers" that the right accuses them of. Yet, here I am, breaking the rule. I'm in the Right's echo chamber and posting memes in similar fashions as I've seen them.

The meme you reposted that I made? Do I need to search for the countless memes on here rejoicing in the prospect for "liberal tears?" You get mad at me for what others are doing, yet I don't see you cracking down on them because it suits your bias.

I also don't ever recall being a "Good person." I do recall stating my views on respect and trust. The memes I post here are merely a reflection of what I see on here. When you see it, and you get angry, maybe you should reconsider the memes you make. 4grn0n.jpg (click to show)

I can see here how you're not making rude, obnoxious, insulting memes that don't make hasty generalizations of an entire populace. This is another example of a bad faith arguement. You say one thing, but you practice another.

I can respect you, and not like you. I can like you, but still have no respect for you. I don't see why you think that's an issue.

If someone comes up to me with 100 grand as you suggest, and say they have this opportunity. I would believe them if they state that they truly believe what they have works. But, I wouldn't trust the chances of success in what they're attempting to do. If you believe you can fly. I believe that you think you can. I don't trust your successes, but I respect your belief of it.

And that's all I need to know. Even if the meme is what you despise in a leftist meme, you'll ignore it because it fits your agenda. Hypocrite. So, I will be here and post as I please as will you. Just don't expect me to take you seriously because of your hypocrisy. M'kay champ?

Yawn. More mental gymnastics, next.

:"Yes, that's the party bullshit that you've been fed, and which you've swallowed whole, without thought.

"Did you get that from Rachel Madcow? Bill Maher? Larry O'Donnell?"

No, I read the law that I cited: 52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals:

(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for— (2)a person [Trump] to solicit [seek a favor], accept [his intention], or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B):

[(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value (dirt on Joe Biden), or to make an express or implied promise (implied promise of aid to Ukraine which he held the funds from June, to October) to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party;\]

of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

"The president of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer. He is not simply able to investigate potential crime, he is OBLIGATED to. He wasn't "asking for a favor" in terms of quid-pro-quo, and he certainly wasn't attempting to commit a crime."

Right, but due to CONFLICT OF INTEREST, he should have directed someone else to work with Ukraine on the matter.

"Do you know what "mens rea" means? It's a legal term which means you have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that you are committing a crime for a crime to actually be taking place."

Maybe you should look up "ignorantia juris non excusat"

"This idea...that Trump was sitting there, surrounded by God knows how many people, and was actually asking for a quid-pro-quo...sitting there, surrounded by God knows how many people, 10-15-20 or more...something that he KNEW was a violation of his oath of office...is madness."

You've quite effectively summarized his presidency.

|And the further idea that so-called "political opponents" are above investigation by virtue of them being "political opponents" is sophist madness. That means I can commit a crime, any crime, so long as I'm "running for office", and no one can investigate me because I'm a "political opponent."

That's insanity."

No, you have the FBI do it. If I were your political opponent, I wouldn't spearhead the investigation, I would let the FBI do it.

"The "rationale" you people are using is complete and utter madness...but because you hate Trump **personally**, you are willing to believe mental gymnastics, just like the rest of the deranged."

... Get that from FOX?

Oooh, name that Trump talking point, I love this game!

This is the one where Joe Biden was acting under orders from Obama and U.S. Policy! Not to mention Ukraine was also facing heat from the IMF because the guy they were after wasn't doing his job!

Oh. You're ill-informed? That's unfortunate.

Maybe you should...

I donno, look it up?

Or do you need me to help you? :)

Your ego is so bent that you think this is a game you have to win? Oh man. I'm so sorry. That's gotta be miserable.

Feigned ignorance of "donno" is just... That's sad. Even for you.

So, I just want to say, thank you. Thank you for going down this rabbit hole and doubling down on Trump's alleged ignorance of the law. Because... Well, he wasn't ignorant. He knew a month and a half beforehand it was against the law.

Proof is in the pudding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2nkQMZEI6Q

He gets told it's against the law. Then, Trump turns around and rejects the law - imposing what he believes the law should say.

Outright denial. :) Cognitive Dissonance at its finest.

So, how do you justify saying the Left seeks to control everyone's lives when they endorse Pro-Choice? When they endorse the freedom to practice whichever religion you choose to follow? The freedom to identify as you please? It's true, some seek to squash 2A. I disagree with this notion. They may seek to speak on things regarding 1A as ruling against hate speech. There are some things, within reason, that shouldn't be protected under the constitution.You can't use "Freedom of speech" as a safety blanket against hate speech and threats of violence. That's reasonable.

If you're worried about Corporations censoring what you say (i.e. Twitter, Facebook.) don't use their platforms. Make your own or find another. They have their own policies which are centered around a vision for their platform. Typically, social media is made with the idea of sharing ideas and creating a constructive environment. Or setting up a platform to be family friendly. Saying the government should restrict what a company should or should not do in the case of speech sounds like you're favoring big government interfering with business. I find this contradictory of the Right who favors small government.

*Yawn.* Right, right.

Rights being taken away one by one. You speak as if this virus is always going to be a threat.

Yeah, attacks on religion. It's not like we implemented a muslim ban or anything.

I like how you said the official religion of the left is atheists. I thought you said you don't make hasty generalizations. But, if it isn't a hasty generalization, you're attempting to state it as fact. So tell me, where does it say that the "Official Religion of the Left is Atheism."? I know some leftists who are agnostic, or christian, or muslim, and so on.

I'm asking for a friend.

I don't know those people.

But yeah, go ahead and slap communism labels on me, making assumptions about my character. Continue to the same, tired, typical diatribe that every single right winger I've met makes (with the exception of a few).

"Omg, you drink the koolaid. You aren't agreeing with me. You're a communist."

Now that Trump is on his way out of office. These words have about as much meaning as red crayon scribbles. It's just someone who's trying to attack someone for having a different opinion. Go on all you want. If it makes you feel better, then I support it. I want you to feel safe. I want you to feel better. Clearly, you need it more than I do.

I'll be here if you wanna talk about your feelings....

Because I don't believe in saying "F**k your feelings."

Gotta say, a lot of people on the right are having some serious feelings tonight...

Here to stay. I just don't have anything further to say to you.

Gas lighting is not something I trifle with. What's worse is that you somehow have figured out how to combine gas lighting with projection. I have to say that I'm impressed with that kind of mind-f**kery.

"You don't have anything to say to me, yet...you keep resonding..."

It's a guilty pleasure.

Your arguments are boring. Nothing but gaslighting.

"Man shares 50% of the pregnancy"

Not quite, busting a nut in a woman is not 50% of the work. You don't carry the child, have the morning sickness, acid indigestion, mood swings, back pains, body changes. You don't push the child out of your uterus. All you did was some thrusting for 5minutes to an hour. Your body then gives you a pat on the back by making it feel good. Women get that too. Everything else is them. So you've spent at most an hour in your "share" of the work. Assuming a pregnancy is 40 weeks exactly.40 weeks. That's six thousand, seven hundred twenty hours. Of which, you did one. Don't make me laugh at this false perspective where a man does "Half the work."

Since you want to talk about the body of the fetus, while it is "alive" in that it is host to cells that are "alive" it is by no means sentient. Once more, it doesn't even feel pain until the third trimester. There is a Republican study that shows that due to the central nervous system being developed at the 20th week, there is an argument that since there is no brain, the CNS still receives positive and negative stimuli. Fine. But according to:
https://www.pcuc.org/statistics-on-abortion/
https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/153059/practice-management/two-thirds-abortions-occur-8-weeks-gestation
Most abortions take place before eight weeks. A great deal of them. If you're that worried about reproductive materials being destroyed, you might wanna tell the entire population of humans to stop masturbating. (I admit, that's a stretch of a claim.)

I agree that not having sex is a better alternative, but it's not a realistic one. If the money that was put into abortions was instead placed into contraceptives and making them more publicly available, (and also not being shamed upon using them) I expect such numbers would drop substantially. But, we have prescription cost problems. That's another topic.

Sit down with your Margaret Sanger strawman. She was not alone in the study of Eugenics and the praise of its practice as many were studying Eugenics in her era. It wasn't uncommon. The notion of breeding out certain unfavorable traits among humans so they wouldn't exist anymore. Medical Science didn't see ethical reform until the mid 1900s. Trying to cite Margaret Sanger is like calling George Washington a White Supremacist for owning slaves. It just doesn't work as it was a symbol of the times.

Not only this, but Planned Parenthood has _seriously_ denounced her views on Eugenics.

He's half responsible for the reason why she's pregnant, yes. I just didn't think you'd come up with such a weak argument to imply that a man has equal rights to a pregnancy when he's not doing any of the hard work. But, here we are. You did. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you so diligently corrected me.

I mean, setting all this aside. I'm just against a law that allows a man to force his trusting significant other to have a child against her will. "Don't have sex." Right, because this is the 1950s. That's simply not practical.

If you want to practice pro-life with your significant other, please: do so. I respect the woman's choice as all I am in regard to the pregnancy is a glorified male cheer leader.

Or, here's a hot take:

If you don't want abortion to happen, don't have sex until your woman states she wants one and then make concerted efforts to have a child. Simple. I know, not practical right? She can still back out and abort because she's human.

Not religious, huh? Then why use the word nihilistic means?

I'll help you out:

ni·hil·is·tic
/ˌnīəˈlistik,ˌnēəˈlistik/
adjective
"rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless."

The keyword being religious "and" moral principles. So, to accuse someone of nihilism in the negative connotation as you did, suggests that you believe nihilism to be a negative trait. To be without religion in this case is negative to you. The logic follows that you would reject this trait and follow some form of metaphysical ideology. Whether it's spiritual, or religious, I can't say for certain. Again, that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you loosely understand the word "nihilistic."

Ah, so you're religious. Yeah. We'll never agree.

Keep gaslighting though, it doesn't work.

"The keyword being religious "and" moral principles."

That's three keywords, not one. Or, to be more precise, a keyword AND a key phrase."

Cute. Except "religious" and "moral" are adjectives of the same noun. The word "and" is the conjunction which places both sets of principles (the noun) require absence so that one can be qualified as nihilist.

To augment my point - Someone who is a nihilist is a believer of nihilism which literally means "nothingism." They believe in nothing, maintaining that life has no meaning and rejecting all moral and religious values.

If this is a negative trait, that you use with other negative traits against another, it implies that you do not share this trait. So logic follows that you believe in something.

Or, are you a nihilist, too?

"religious "and" moral principles" is FOUR words.

Your words: "That's three keywords."

I didn't take you for the "Grammar Nazi" trope.

I was referring to the words "religious" and "moral principles", not the word "and."

"You follow...? Or is that a bit heady for you...?"

Somehow I find it interesting you can be a strictler about grammar, but fail to grasp concepts of english.

"To augment my point - Someone who is a nihilist is a believer of nihilism which literally means "nothingism." They believe in nothing, maintaining that life has no meaning and rejecting all moral and religious values.

If this is a negative trait, that you use with other negative traits against another, it implies that you do not share this trait. So logic follows that you believe in something."

Nice! You're adjusting your argument without actually admitting you were wrong. Very well done!

:) An interesting take. I mean, you can call it what you like, but that doesn't make it true.

"Believing in something" is not a synonym for "religious."

Nor is "nihilism" confined to your understand of the word. It has a broader meaning than the one you're trying to affix to it.

"Happy to educate you, as always.

Does that bother you...? When I say things like that...?

Asking for a friend."

Watching the Rare, Flailing Contrarian is always a treat in education.

"You're a nihilist? How delightfully charming."

? I never said I was. You seem to believe I am one. If you are a nihilist, wouldn't that make two in your perspective?

"Well, the good thing is, God is NOT a nihilist."
So, do you believe in God?

"As I already told you...if you want to play this game, you will lose. But you're more than welcome to try.

Now, please meltdown again about how "pathetic" it is that I "think of this as a game" that I have to "win" when *you* are the one who initiated it.

I'll sit back and enjoy my filtered water...

Mmmmmm!"

Huh? I don't remember signing up for a game. Do you play with yourself often? "God" doesn't like that, you know.

So, you extend a modicum of respect to all people equally, then?

Ah, see... Until someone proves to me otherwise, I treat them like my brother. Then judgement can be justified at that point. If I am distrusting of everyone... well... That's just not productive.

I'd rather "signal" my virtue than have someone think I have none. How can one earn something if they do not express their values? If I don't trust you, I don't respect you. My values of trust are different than yours, evidently. I respect honest people.

So because I hold values of Trust to honesty that makes me a leftist? Alright. I'll wear that shoe. Nothing wrong with being a leftist. I don't need your approval. it's unfortunate though that Trump and the Extreme right spread so much lies and misinformation about leftists. Before Trump though, I was centrist.

It's easy to be dishonest in politics. You can disagree with me politically, be honest in your disagreements, and I can still respect you. Like I respect John McCaine, Ronald Reagan, or Mitt Romney. I may not agree with them, but I respect them.

People who argue in bad faith, yes. F**k'em. I have no shame in returning such disrespect. :)

I don't really care what others think of me. I care about how my actions are perceived, there's a difference. I would rather my intentions and stances be clear than misinterpreted due to the lack of a message. With respect, I am speaking on principle. Of course, everyone deserves the respect of a human being - all humans. Yet, within the common scene of social interactions, if you have given me a reason to not trust you, I don't respect you. See the difference?

Everyone has different values. Some, value consistency. Others enjoy restraint and dignity, I value honesty. Do I trust people who walk up to the street and knock on my door? I give people the benefit of the doubt unless they give me reason to suggest otherwise.

I don't know who Newman is, I had to google and skim through what she is. I saw keywords like Liberal Democrat, Sexism in the workplace, etc. I fail to see how that connects to me. Especially since I didn't know who she was.

I disagree. I see the left as a movement that favors libertarian policies moreso than the right. Though, I'm curious how you associate the left with Slavery and Misery. I think I have an idea on death. I'd put 100 dollars on it.

So, you knew me before to be able to say I knew nothing? Alright. Sure, my political view was more uninformed than it is now. My stances in my 20s were simply this: Mind your own damned business. Let me own a gun if I want. If my woman wants to have an abortion, that's her prerogative, not mine. Let me worship (or choose not to) whatever imaginary (or otherwise) thing I wanted. Let others be able to identify themselves if it improves their mental health. And finally, suffering Asthma without medical insurance was living my life on the edge for so long. Insurance was too expensive (thank you asthma - pre-existing condition.) ACA came. I could afford it, and I could now see the Doctor to get my medicine.

I see Democrats and I enjoy their platform thus far. I also respected the Republicans and the idea of free market. Limited government interaction with the people. (As Democrats agree on the aforementioned points) also making your own success.

I agree with all of these things. What pushed me to the left in this culture war was Donald Trump. He started pushing on some values which were previously not jeopardized. I took issue with that and thus began my life of politics and examining them more closely. It's been a catch up game since.

I disagree with regard to your perceptions of <more>

<cont> I disagree with your perceptions on the three I mentioned earlier.

Arguing in bad faith? That's saying that you feel one way when you actually feel another. For instance, remember the impeachment "sham?" Let's look at Lindsay Graham's reasons for impeaching Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5xOrA4FNNw

He's citing when Nixon refused to permit Congress oversight, that is when he spelled his doom for impeachment. Clinton refused oversight as welll. Ergo, his impeachment (which he wasn't acquitted if I remember correctly.) Here, we have Trump refusing oversight. By all counts of Graham's reasons for impeaching Clinton over a blow job, we have something that is in quite clear violation of title 52 section 30121 subparagraph 2a (or was it a2?) by saying "I would like you to do us a favor though." the "I would like you to." is the solicitation the "favor" is a thing referring to a thing of value. He asked a foreign official -directly- to do something for him involving a political opponent. Clear violation.

Graham also pleaded the Senate to to make up their minds regarding the case against Clinton. Here we are in Trump era (Now here we were) and he doesn't give a peep to stand by his convictions.

I kept seeing examples like this by the Republican party over and over and over. What a shame.

Yo, bro, can I borrow your car and 50 bucks?

Respect and rapport are two different things. I can whole-heartedly respect you without knowing you. But since we don't have that sort of rapport, I can't let you use my car. I trust that you would return my car and the 50 bucks. If you say it, I believe you. However, I reserve such privileges for people whom I have a close rapport.

So the way you treat your brother then?

4lf6zi.jpg (click to show)

If I saw someone in dire need, I would help them out as best I could, yes.

?? "Now...it's a time honored scumbag move to do that, to appear you're getting "the last word"...but you were throwing a temper tantrum earlier about "respect" and whatnot, so I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know that."

What temper tantrum...?

What makes me a scumbag?

Why would you call someone a scumbag?

"Again, moving the goalposts.

"help them out as best I could" is a copout. What you mean is "help them out the best I WANT to."

Because...again...and I can do this to your argument all day...if my brother called me up and said "hey, I need a kidney, you think you could help?", I would say "mmmm...ok, but that means you have to lose at Risk™ for the rest of our lives."

If a stranger came up to me and said "hey, I need a kidney, you think you could help?" I would say "probably not, but let's drive you to the hospital and see if there are any donations available.":"

Having a vested interest in my brother's survival is different from the amount of investment I give to a stranger who needs a body part. I respect the stranger like a brother, but I do not love them like a brother. Relationships are different than trust. My brother has sentimental value. A stranger I would go out of my way to help by taking to the hospital as opposed to saying. "No, sorry. I can't help you." Obviously, I can't give a kidney to every stranger who needs one. So I must choose who earns that.

Your argument is flawed, but I see your point. You seem to have an all encompassing view of what Trust is. Mine is simply narrowed to honesty.

So why are you bringing up scenarios of compassion when it has nothing to do with respect or trust?

You're arguing semantics and ignoring the notion of rapport.

You know, I could always drive them where they need to go, and purchase for them what they need.