Meryl Streep

[BackInTex]

What matters is that Trump used an offensive slur for a disabled person in public on multiple occasions and that you and he and many of his other supporters don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.

1) It's only offensive to bigots, those who see people for what the are and not who they are. You see a disable person's gestures (what they are), I see a moron's gestures (who they are).

2) Everyone is offended by something, and any and all things offend somebody. You can gauge your maturity by the number of things that offend you, and it is an inverse relationship.

[Bob78164]

What matters is that Trump used an offensive slur for a disabled person in public on multiple occasions and that you and he and many of his other supporters don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.

1) It's only offensive to bigots, those who see people for what the are and not who they are. You see a disable person's gestures (what they are), I see a moron's gestures (who they are).

2) Everyone is offended by something, and any and all things offend somebody. You can gauge your maturity by the number of things that offend you, and it is an inverse relationship.

Let's look again at the video:



Trump was inviting ridicule of the reporter by imitating his involuntary gestures, not by addressing the content of his communications. That's mockery of the disabled.

And you'll find, by the way, that calling something fake news isn't terribly effective when anyone can see the video for themselves. Even in the age of the Trumpian Big Lie. --Bob

[BackInTex]

And you'll find, by the way, that calling something fake news isn't terribly effective when anyone can see the video for themselves. Even in the age of the Trumpian Big Lie. --Bob

Where did I do that?

Trump was inviting ridicule of the reporter by imitating his involuntary gestures, not by addressing the content of his communications. That's mockery of the disabled.

We'll just have to disagree on that. You're seeing something that's not there, to fit your agenda.

[flockofseagulls104]

What matters is that Trump used an offensive slur for a disabled person in public on multiple occasions and that you and he and many of his other supporters don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.

1) It's only offensive to bigots, those who see people for what the are and not who they are. You see a disable person's gestures (what they are), I see a moron's gestures (who they are).

2) Everyone is offended by something, and any and all things offend somebody. You can gauge your maturity by the number of things that offend you, and it is an inverse relationship.

Let's look again at the video:


Trump was inviting ridicule of the reporter by imitating his involuntary gestures, not by addressing the content of his communications. That's mockery of the disabled.

And you'll find, by the way, that calling something fake news isn't terribly effective when anyone can see the video for themselves. Even in the age of the Trumpian Big Lie. --Bob

I doubt that anyone in his SC audience ever even heard of Serge before, much less knew he had any handicap. I'll bet even Trump didn't know. But I don't know. but you know Bob, NEITHER DO YOU. In any event, even if Trump did have any recollection of Serge, HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY INVOLUNTARY MOVEMENTS. But keep sucking on your Trump binky, you and SSS.

BJ Must be on vacation. Haven't seen any of his inane comments yet. Or maybe you and he are actually the same person

#FAKE NEWS

[silverscreenselect]

I see a moron's gestures (who they are).

So, you equate a stupid person with a person who physically cannot control his bodily movements.

Do you also equate stupid people with those who make comments about birthin babies and eating watermelon?

[flockofseagulls104]

And you'll find, by the way, that calling something fake news isn't terribly effective when anyone can see the video for themselves. Even in the age of the Trumpian Big Lie. --Bob

Where did I do that?

Trump was inviting ridicule of the reporter by imitating his involuntary gestures, not by addressing the content of his communications. That's mockery of the disabled.

We'll just have to disagree on that. You're seeing something that's not there, to fit your agenda.

I'm calling it #FAKE NEWS, because that's what it is.

[Bob78164]

And you'll find, by the way, that calling something fake news isn't terribly effective when anyone can see the video for themselves. Even in the age of the Trumpian Big Lie. --Bob

Where did I do that?

You're right, you didn't. For some reason I gave you "credit" for one of flock's posts. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I see a moron's gestures (who they are).

So, you equate a stupid person with a person who physically cannot control his bodily movements.

Do you also equate stupid people with those who make comments about birthin babies and eating watermelon?

You have no place to pass judgment about anyone else, spazz-man.

[flockofseagulls104]

This debate is getting way too intellectual for me.

[silverscreenselect]

I doubt that anyone in his SC audience ever even heard of Serge before, much less knew he had any handicap.

You may be right.

But that audience had seen people with palsy and similar afflictions before and they knew right away that's what Trump was making fun of.

And to use those involuntary motions to describe a person you think is stupid equates palsy with stupidity, which many people do, because they think people with palsy are also mentally challenged.

We call those people ignorant at best, bigots at worst.

Which are you, Flock?

[silverscreenselect]

So, you equate a stupid person with a person who physically cannot control his bodily movements.

Do you also equate stupid people with those who make comments about birthin babies and eating watermelon?

You have no place to pass judgment about anyone else, spazz-man.

I did that when I was in fourth grade. And I remember it now because I'm not too proud of it now, even though I was only in fourth grade at the time. I think you're way past fourth grade now, Flock.

[Bob78164]

I doubt that anyone in his SC audience ever even heard of Serge before, much less knew he had any handicap. I'll bet even Trump didn't know.

You'd lose that bet. The reporter had covered Trump for years, they had met repeatedly, and were on a first-name basis.

You're trying to justify the indefensible in service of your own political views. It says a lot about you that you're trying to rationalize this:



--Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

You'd lose that bet. The reporter had covered Trump for years, they had met repeatedly, and were on a first-name basis.

Prove it.

#FAKE NEWS

[flockofseagulls104]

So, you equate a stupid person with a person who physically cannot control his bodily movements.

Do you also equate stupid people with those who make comments about birthin babies and eating watermelon?

You have no place to pass judgment about anyone else, spazz-man.

I did that when I was in fourth grade. And I remember it now because I'm not too proud of it now, even though I was only in fourth grade at the time. I think you're way past fourth grade now, Flock.

Still, you did it. And you admit you did. Nothing I see indicates you've changed, spazz-man.

[Bob78164]

You'd lose that bet. The reporter had covered Trump for years, they had met repeatedly, and were on a first-name basis.

Prove it.

#FAKE NEWS

Don't need to, because (although true) it's beside the point. The point is that Trump used his public platform to mock the disabled, as seen here:



--Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

You'd lose that bet. The reporter had covered Trump for years, they had met repeatedly, and were on a first-name basis.

Prove it.

#FAKE NEWS

Don't need to, because (although true) it's beside the point. The point is that Trump used his public platform to mock the disabled, as seen here:


--Bob

Is that how you work in the courtroom, counselor? Make a claim and you don't have to prove it? Guilty until I say he's innocent? Staunch supporter of #FAKE NEWS?
God help your clients.

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob: Your Honor, the defendant stands accused of stealing my client's car, assaulting his wife and poisoning his cat.

Judge: Counselor, the defense has already established that your client has never owned a car, has never been married and is deathly allergic to cats.

Bob: Well, He's a bad man. I don't have to prove any of that stuff. He would have done it if he had the chance. I know it. And I have pledged that I will spend my life making sure his life is pure hell. Oh and watch the video I found where he says the words 'Steal' and 'Car' in adjoining sentences. Later in the video, he says 'Wife' and 'Assault', 'Poison' and 'Cat', but not in that order. Later he mentions my client's name. What more proof do you need?

#FAKE NEWS

[Bob78164]

Bob: Your Honor, the defendant stands accused of stealing my client's car, assaulting his wife and poisoning his cat.

Judge: Counselor, the defense has already established that your client has never owned a car, has never been married and is deathly allergic to cats.

Bob: Well, He's a bad man. I don't have to prove any of that stuff. He would have done it if he had the chance. I know it. And I have pledged that I will spend my life making sure his life is pure hell. Oh and watch the video I found where he says the words 'Steal' and 'Car' in adjoining sentences. Later in the video, he says 'Wife' and 'Assault', 'Poison' and 'Cat', but not in that order. Later he mentions my client's name. What more proof do you need?

#FAKE NEWS

Here's video where, after punching out the wife, he grabs her car keys, uses them to get into the car and drives it away.



So I urge the jury to allow his attempts to explain that his behavior really wasn't theft and battery to fall on deaf ears. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Still, you did it. And you admit you did. Nothing I see indicates you've changed, spazz-man.

Well, considering how little you actually see of the world around you that isn't already given to you in pre-digested chunks by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (the great imitator of Michael J. Fox) and Sean Hannity, that's not surprising.

I don't know what you did in the fourth grade Flock; for all I know you may have been a saint. If that's the case, you've regressed considerably in the years since then. Your continued failure to see anything demeaning in Trump's little show, which Bob has posted numerous times in case you still refuse to acknowledge it, indicates that you have serious problems in recognizing bigoted behavior, which puts your own continued claims of righteousness somewhat in question.

To sum up, your defenses of Trump throughout this thread amount to this:

1) It's not a derogatory slur to demean someone unless your slur is 100% accurate. Thus, referring to a dark skinned person by the N-word is not a slur or bigoted as long as they are Indian, or Arab or some other ethnicity other than African-American.

2) It's okay to use a derogatory slur to describe someone as long as that slur is a form of bigoted shorthand for another putdown that's not a slur. Thus, referring to a white person by a derogatory term for a Hispanic is okay as long as you're trying to imply the person is lazy instead of accusing him of actually being Hispanic. (because we all" know" Hispanics are lazy, just as we all know that people with palsy are also mentally challenged).

I think that says as much about you as it does about Trump.

[flockofseagulls104]

Still, you did it. And you admit you did. Nothing I see indicates you've changed, spazz-man.

Well, considering how little you actually see of the world around you that isn't already given to you in pre-digested chunks by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (the great imitator of Michael J. Fox) and Sean Hannity, that's not surprising.

I don't know what you did in the fourth grade Flock; for all I know you may have been a saint. If that's the case, you've regressed considerably in the years since then. Your continued failure to see anything demeaning in Trump's little show, which Bob has posted numerous times in case you still refuse to acknowledge it, indicates that you have serious problems in recognizing bigoted behavior, which puts your own continued claims of righteousness somewhat in question.

To sum up, your defenses of Trump throughout this thread amount to this:

1) It's not a derogatory slur to demean someone unless your slur is 100% accurate. Thus, referring to a dark skinned person by the N-word is not a slur or bigoted as long as they are Indian, or Arab or some other ethnicity other than African-American.

2) It's okay to use a derogatory slur to describe someone as long as that slur is a form of bigoted shorthand for another putdown that's not a slur. Thus, referring to a white person by a derogatory term for a Hispanic is okay as long as you're trying to imply the person is lazy instead of accusing him of actually being Hispanic. (because we all" know" Hispanics are lazy, just as we all know that people with palsy are also mentally challenged).

I think that says as much about you as it does about Trump.

You seem to know a whole lot about bigotry. A lot more than I do. I honestly didn't know that Hispanic people are considered lazy by bigots. I just don't keep up with all the stereotypes that you seem to hold dear. All the Hispanic people I know are hard working people. I thought bigots just considered them dumb. Lazy was for "colahed people", right? At least that is what I heard.
And who even knows who Amos and Andy were these days, much less how to imitate them? So where do you hear people doing that? I suspect that you did a lot more than joking about spazzes when you were in 4th grade. Did you call all dark skinned people the N-Word in the 4th grade? I never heard of someone doing that. As far as I knew, that term was how bigots referred to African Americans. not Indians or Arabs. Those people had their own epithets (Maybe you can let us know what they are. I certainly don't know.) They don't even do that in the movies, where they use the N-Word way more than anyone does in real life (disrespect incites disrespect according to Ms Streep, but they are Hollywood elites, they can do anything they want because they are good people.). Well, I can't say that for sure. I don't watch all the movies you do. For all I know they use epithets I never even heard of but are used all the time by the people you hang around with. Teach me more.

#FAKE NEWS

[silverscreenselect]

Still, you did it. And you admit you did. Nothing I see indicates you've changed, spazz-man.

Well, considering how little you actually see of the world around you that isn't already given to you in pre-digested chunks by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (the great imitator of Michael J. Fox) and Sean Hannity, that's not surprising.

I don't know what you did in the fourth grade Flock; for all I know you may have been a saint. If that's the case, you've regressed considerably in the years since then. Your continued failure to see anything demeaning in Trump's little show, which Bob has posted numerous times in case you still refuse to acknowledge it, indicates that you have serious problems in recognizing bigoted behavior, which puts your own continued claims of righteousness somewhat in question.

To sum up, your defenses of Trump throughout this thread amount to this:

1) It's not a derogatory slur to demean someone unless your slur is 100% accurate. Thus, referring to a dark skinned person by the N-word is not a slur or bigoted as long as they are Indian, or Arab or some other ethnicity other than African-American.

2) It's okay to use a derogatory slur to describe someone as long as that slur is a form of bigoted shorthand for another putdown that's not a slur. Thus, referring to a white person by a derogatory term for a Hispanic is okay as long as you're trying to imply the person is lazy instead of accusing him of actually being Hispanic. (because we all" know" Hispanics are lazy, just as we all know that people with palsy are also mentally challenged).

I think that says as much about you as it does about Trump.

You seem to know a whole lot about bigotry. A lot more than I do. I honestly didn't know that Hispanic people are considered lazy by bigots. I just don't keep up with all the stereotypes that you seem to hold dear. All the Hispanic people I know are hard working people. I thought bigots just considered them dumb. Lazy was for "colahed people", right? At least that is what I heard.
And who even knows who Amos and Andy were these days, much less how to imitate them? So where do you hear people doing that? I suspect that you did a lot more than joking about spazzes when you were in 4th grade. Did you call all dark skinned people the N-Word in the 4th grade? I never heard of someone doing that. As far as I knew, that term was how bigots referred to African Americans. not Indians or Arabs. Those people had their own epithets (Maybe you can let us know what they are. I certainly don't know.) They don't even do that in the movies, where they use the N-Word way more than anyone does in real life (disrespect incites disrespect according to Ms Streep, but they are Hollywood elites, they can do anything they want because they are good people.). Well, I can't say that for sure. I don't watch all the movies you do. For all I know they use epithets I never even heard of but are used all the time by the people you hang around with. Teach me more.

#FAKE NEWS

Flock, I think what you need is a course in simple reading comprehension. Now, I realize you don't need this when you listen to Rush and Sean because they tell you all they want you to think, but when you actually see printed words on a page, you have a problem understanding their meaning.

And for someone who "doesn't keep up with stereotypes," you had no trouble figuring out that when Donald Trump shook his arms and body around like a person with palsy that what he meant was that they were stupid. You also had no trouble figuring out who Amos and Andy were either.

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, considering how little you actually see of the world around you that isn't already given to you in pre-digested chunks by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (the great imitator of Michael J. Fox) and Sean Hannity, that's not surprising.

I don't know what you did in the fourth grade Flock; for all I know you may have been a saint. If that's the case, you've regressed considerably in the years since then. Your continued failure to see anything demeaning in Trump's little show, which Bob has posted numerous times in case you still refuse to acknowledge it, indicates that you have serious problems in recognizing bigoted behavior, which puts your own continued claims of righteousness somewhat in question.

To sum up, your defenses of Trump throughout this thread amount to this:

1) It's not a derogatory slur to demean someone unless your slur is 100% accurate. Thus, referring to a dark skinned person by the N-word is not a slur or bigoted as long as they are Indian, or Arab or some other ethnicity other than African-American.

2) It's okay to use a derogatory slur to describe someone as long as that slur is a form of bigoted shorthand for another putdown that's not a slur. Thus, referring to a white person by a derogatory term for a Hispanic is okay as long as you're trying to imply the person is lazy instead of accusing him of actually being Hispanic. (because we all" know" Hispanics are lazy, just as we all know that people with palsy are also mentally challenged).

I think that says as much about you as it does about Trump.

You seem to know a whole lot about bigotry. A lot more than I do. I honestly didn't know that Hispanic people are considered lazy by bigots. I just don't keep up with all the stereotypes that you seem to hold dear. All the Hispanic people I know are hard working people. I thought bigots just considered them dumb. Lazy was for "colahed people", right? At least that is what I heard.
And who even knows who Amos and Andy were these days, much less how to imitate them? So where do you hear people doing that? I suspect that you did a lot more than joking about spazzes when you were in 4th grade. Did you call all dark skinned people the N-Word in the 4th grade? I never heard of someone doing that. As far as I knew, that term was how bigots referred to African Americans. not Indians or Arabs. Those people had their own epithets (Maybe you can let us know what they are. I certainly don't know.) They don't even do that in the movies, where they use the N-Word way more than anyone does in real life (disrespect incites disrespect according to Ms Streep, but they are Hollywood elites, they can do anything they want because they are good people.). Well, I can't say that for sure. I don't watch all the movies you do. For all I know they use epithets I never even heard of but are used all the time by the people you hang around with. Teach me more.

#FAKE NEWS

Flock, I think what you need is a course in simple reading comprehension. Now, I realize you don't need this when you listen to Rush and Sean because they tell you all they want you to think, but when you actually see printed words on a page, you have a problem understanding their meaning.

And for someone who "doesn't keep up with stereotypes," you had no trouble figuring out that when Donald Trump shook his arms and body around like a person with palsy that what he meant was that they were stupid. You also had no trouble figuring out who Amos and Andy were either.

What did I misunderstand? I assume you were assigning stereotypes to me, like you always do.

I am 60 years old and have been around. I have heard of Amos and Andy, which were of my grandparents era, I assume, and I may have seen a couple clips of them. I doubt many people today have ever heard of them. Most people don't even know who their US representative is and couldn't care less. But they will be outraged at some issue if they are prompted to be by their favorite singer or celebrity or by the main stream fake news.

I believe you are making that assumption, not me. When I see that clip, I see him calling that reporter dishonest and afraid he will lose his job and the respect of his liberal co workers if he admits he wrote the piece that he did write. So he pretended he didn't remember, and Trump acted out a guy who was in trouble and didn't know what to do, acting like he didn't remember writing the article, when he knows he really did. You saw what you saw because that's what you wanted to see, and because your favorite singer, celebrity or main stream fake news source told you to see that, spazz-man.

#FAKE NEWS

[Estonut]

The video says otherwise.

For an attorney, words should matter. Apparently they don't.

He did not mock the disabled.

He DID mock a disabled reporter. But he did not mock the reporter for his disability. He mocked him because he is a moron. Just because a reporter has a disability does not mean he is immune from criticism, or mocking, as other reporters, or people, may be subject to. That would be discriminatory.

He didn't mock him by using his words. He mocked him by imitating his physical mannerisms. Don't believe me? See for yourself.

Have you seen a video of the reporter in question, Bob? He has NO SUCH mannerisms. Zero.

[flockofseagulls104]

For an attorney, words should matter. Apparently they don't.

He did not mock the disabled.

He DID mock a disabled reporter. But he did not mock the reporter for his disability. He mocked him because he is a moron. Just because a reporter has a disability does not mean he is immune from criticism, or mocking, as other reporters, or people, may be subject to. That would be discriminatory.

He didn't mock him by using his words. He mocked him by imitating his physical mannerisms. Don't believe me? See for yourself.

Have you seen a video of the reporter in question, Bob? He has NO SUCH mannerisms. Zero.

No, he only has eyes for the #FAKE NEWS video he keeps posting. Ask him if he's seen the video of the kid that was tortured. Not fake news, but not as important to him as trashing our next President.

[Estonut]

Nor will you find video of me bragging about grabbing women by the genitals.

Your video says otherwise. It's even subtitled for you. He never says he ever grabbed a woman by the genitals.