Well dammit. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I do have a Facebook account, but I don't post on it; and as you say, it's slam full of bullsh*it like this meme that I copied off it. I thought the meme was funny, just as the Trump walking on water meme that you all praised so highly.
I'm guessing that Trump-hating celebrities fondling themselves and mimicking intercourse on a stage is totally acceptable, but Trump's (or anyone else) saying he would like to grab one of them by the pussy is not acceptable? Oh, the hypocritical butthurt.
No feelings hurt here. I'm being facetious.
I think memes cross into the realm of "fake-news" when they imply someone said something they didn't. I think it's important to call out false political narratives when you see them. To me, memes are to ridicule and point out absurdities; never to be taken seriously. I get a huge kick out of surfing Facebook seeing the memes posted by Libs and Cons; each vehemently screeching about who did what and what they're going to do.
We ought to hold the President, the person holding the highest public office in the nation, representing ALL Americans, to a higher standard than entertainment celebrities working the private sector. Agreed. The implication is that vulgar celebs are OK for public viewing; whereas profile people should be "run out of town on a rail" for their lewdness. Strangely enough, Cons and Christians feel the need to overlook Trump's discretions as long as he's "doing a good job for our country". (I've found no one who can define "good job", though). OTOH, Libs see nothing wrong with celebs who call out politicians for their dirty little indiscretions displaying lewdness on the stage; because they're only entertaining.
I'm guessing that Trump-hating celebrities fondling themselves and mimicking intercourse on a stage is totally acceptable, but Trump's (or anyone else) saying he would like to grab one of them by the pussy is not acceptable? Oh, the hypocritical butthurt.
Well put, except for the "hypocritical" part. Of course what one does to/for themselves or allows others to do is acceptable while unwanted/forced touching/fondling/pussygrabbing is not. You really don't see the difference? Yes, I see the difference; however, had Trump been a Dem...(you know.)
From above: Libs see nothing wrong with celebs, who call out politicians for their dirty little indiscretions, displaying lewdness on the stage; because they're only entertaining.
When you say, "Yes, I see the difference; however, had Trump been a Dem.."
Are you referring to Senator Franken?
Dumbass Dems asked him to leave for pretending to touch a stripper's titties
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
When you say, "Yes, I see the difference; however, had Trump been a Dem..Are you referring to Senator Franken? Not really. I was thinking any Dem in general.
Dumbass Dems asked him to leave for pretending to touch a stripper's titties. That's a sexual assault, not a sexual impropriety. Ask Vrede.
Had any Dem or any other Republican or any Libertarian done any one of the things Trump has done, they'd have been dumped.
That's why I can't figure out why cons are drooling all over Trump. Cons are largely Christian based.
Because nobody else has ever been able to get elected while promising to give the Christians special rights, end abortions, and keep the Meskins from raping their daughters.
Because nobody else has ever been able to get elected while promising to give the Christians special rights, end abortions, and keep the Meskins from raping their daughters.
I don't recall ever hearing the "ending abortions" claim.
Every time an election or special nomination is in the works, the first 'desperate screeching' you hear is from the Dems and Libs claiming the Republicans are going to rescind Roe V. Wade. (Have the Dems taken away gun ownership yet?)
I don't recall hearing about any "Christian special rights", no more than what I heard about gay rights, LBGTQ recognition, etc.
Well, now you have. If you want to verify what he's said, it's really easy to do.
But nevermind what he's actually said, that's what the religious right heard.
Well, now you have. If you want to verify what he's said, it's really easy to do. Depending on whether I visit a lib or con website.
But nevermind what he's actually said, that's what the religious right heard. As well as did the liberal left.
So Buddy Hackett died in 2003 or so, well before Trump was a political figure. But here's what he had to say about the man currently President*.
(Assume heavy stereotypical Brooklyn accent) "Did you know Donald Trump was born a co-joined twin? Joined at the penis. When they tried to separate them, both died but the prick lived." Badaboom.
So Buddy Hackett died in 2003 or so, well before Trump was a political figure. But here's what he had to say about the man currently President*.
(Assume heavy stereotypical Brooklyn accent) "Did you know Donald Trump was born a co-joined twin? Joined at the penis. When they tried to separate them, both died but the prick lived." Badaboom.
This was the common perception of trump and what makes people supporting him so weird.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Leo said, "From above: Libs see nothing wrong with celebs, who call out politicians for their dirty little indiscretions, displaying lewdness on the stage; because they're only entertaining."
Are you really saying that showing lewdness on stage or film is wrong?
How about violence?
Drunkenness?
Murder?
Bible stories?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
So Buddy Hackett died in 2003 or so, well before Trump was a political figure. But here's what he had to say about the man currently President*.
(Assume heavy stereotypical Brooklyn accent) "Did you know Donald Trump was born a co-joined twin? Joined at the penis. When they tried to separate them, both died but the prick lived." Badaboom.
Leo said, "From above: Libs see nothing wrong with celebs, who call out politicians for their dirty little indiscretions, displaying lewdness on the stage; because they're only entertaining."
Are you really saying that showing lewdness on stage or film is wrong?
How about violence?
Drunkenness?
Murder?
Bible stories?
I suppose that would depend on the amount of intoxicants in your system at the time, and whether or not you hate law officers.
Why are some people such prudes about sex? Nothing wrong with sex. It shouldn't be made into a public spectacle, though.
I may or may not be entertained by what some exhibitionist celebs do on TV or the stage, but I'm less offended by it than I am by, say, the obscenity of .....Army ads Yep, downright nastiness there, for sure. Who in hell wants to see a young man or woman given the opportunity for free education, meals, room & board, and being paid to learn a trade? Military isn't all about fighting while wussies whine.
..or positive depictions of narcs. You sure don't want anybody risking their lives to keep dangerous drugs off the streets. As long as you can get yours, you're free to bash law enforcement all you want.
Those are my tastes. We know.
Regardless, that's TV, it has no comparison to real world attempted rape, sexual assault, and peeping on the underaged. There's plenty of comparison. If it wasn't on TV, there would far less cases of attempted rape, sexual assault, and peeping on the underaged. Real-life nutjobs get much of their ideas from the nutjobs who dream up that shit to put on TV.
Why are some people such prudes about sex? Nothing wrong with sex. It shouldn't be made into a public spectacle, though.
I may or may not be entertained by what some exhibitionist celebs do on TV or the stage, but I'm less offended by it than I am by, say, the obscenity of .....Army ads Yep, downright nastiness there, for sure. Who in hell wants to see a young man or woman given the opportunity for free education, meals, room & board, and being paid to learn a trade? Military isn't all about fighting while wussies whine.
..or positive depictions of narcs. You sure don't want anybody risking their lives to keep dangerous drugs off the streets. As long as you can get yours, you're free to bash law enforcement all you want.
Those are my tastes. We know.
Regardless, that's TV, it has no comparison to real world attempted rape, sexual assault, and peeping on the underaged. There's plenty of comparison. If it wasn't on TV, there would far less cases of attempted rape, sexual assault, and peeping on the underaged. Real-life nutjobs get much of their ideas from the nutjobs who dream up that shit to put on TV.
From sex doll statues dating back 20,000+ years
to
Greek nude public statues around 500 BCE
Rome the same a little later
to
Botticelli and Michelangelo in the 1500s - mostly in and paid for by the church
and on and on and on, to
Rembrandt and Renoir 1600s to late 1800s
Mae West early 1900s
Marilyn, and Ursula and on forever from forever
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
I should like Army ads because they promote a massively expensive, wasteful and inefficient way to deliver welfare? Do tell.
Again, the science PROVES that you have NOT been keeping dangerous drugs off the streets. It's just a massively destructive, expensive, wasteful and inefficient way to deliver welfare to your comrades and to pushers.
There's no evidence that TV causes sexual abuse and perversion. Otoh, there's plenty of evidence that your style of sexual repression does. I love how you get so wussy and desperate that you just pull "facts" out of your ass when you're flounering.
I should like Army ads because they promote a massively expensive, wasteful and inefficient way to deliver welfare? Do tell. "For every action, there's an opposite and equal reaction" Figure it out.
Again, the science PROVES that you have NOT been keeping dangerous drugs off the streets. I've not seen any scientists confiscating huge bundles of heroin and cocaine. You got citations for that claim? No, we didn't, and still aren't keeping it off the streets. DEA is so poorly under-funded, there's not enough agents. The junk comes is just as fast as it's confiscated.
It's just a massively destructive, How so?
expensive, Yep
wasteful Saving lives is wasteful?
and inefficient way to deliver welfare to your comrades and to pushers. Deliver welfare? DEA is not the Welfare Department. You're thinking welfare to the users?
There's no evidence that TV causes sexual abuse and perversion. Well no, it doesn't cause it; ideas are gleaned from the presented content.
Otoh, there's plenty of evidence that your style of sexual repression does. My style?
I love how you get so wussy and desperate that you just pull "facts" out of your ass when you're flounering.(sic) And I love how you get so wussy and desperate that you just pull "facts" out of your ass when YOU'RE floundering.
