Is any thread here worth reading?
-
Look at the last two letters of the web address. Obviously it will be filled with Alt-Right a-holes who very much want people not to be concerned with Russia.
-
Look at the last two letters of the web address. Obviously it will be filled with Alt-Right a-holes who very much want people not to be concerned with Russia.
You are a fool. although the last two letters of this site are .RU.. this site has zero to do with Russia. Just ask Czar Joker, and comrades Riddler, Mazda, Pawpcorn, and Raphjd
-
You are a fool. although the last two letters of this site are .RU.. this site has zero to do with Russia. Just ask Czar Joker, and comrades Riddler, Mazda, Pawpcorn, and Raphjd
Yeah, mmmhmm. It's a website with a Russian address where the most vociferous posters happen to be very defensive of Russia. Could not possibly have a connection there.
-
(asking for a friend
)Is there any thread in this section where the intent of the poster is to have an actual discussion about something rather than to post some whacked-out, innuendo-/rumor-filled, and/or vitriolic attack that is only tenuously based in reality and to which 90% of the population would respond with a sigh and an eye-roll?
Because that's fine and all, and if that is what everyone considers this part of the forum for, great. Maybe this subforum should be re-titled in that case, though, because it definitely is not a place for "debate."
Regardless of political leanings - I think some want to debate but I have to agree that there is a lot of baiting, then insults, pointing & laughing when people respond with anything other than pure agreement.. which makes it somewhat tense & even kinda scary around here sometimes
-
Not lately, no. Just look at the majority of posts in this thread.
-
Lets just say the debate of porn would probably be a lot more interesting and more bi-partisan then this forum has become. There is no debate to be had here. For the most part the sheer hatred and vitriol coming from a select few is sad and disturbing. There is no reason and or point to try to have a conversation as for the most part they start off one sided and deteriorate from there.
-
You are a fool. although the last two letters of this site are .RU.. this site has zero to do with Russia. Just ask Czar Joker, and comrades Riddler, Mazda, Pawpcorn, and Raphjd
Yeah, mmmhmm. It's a website with a Russian address where the most vociferous posters happen to be very defensive of Russia. Could not possibly have a connection there.
The site is based in Russia for practical reasons which you should already understand. It has nothing to do with the staff being in love with Russia.
I don't give a shit about Russia.
I don't give a shit about Trump.
-
I"m really having a lot of trouble understanding all of the Hillary comments. I would recommend just skipping anything where Hillary is mentioned in the first two posts.
Although you should read my Hillary thread which all the Hillary haters mysteriously stayed away from. I can't imagine why…..
Hmm. So what should we call it? There's Godwin's Law, that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1." We could call it "Gaydwin's Law" given the nature of the board. Or perhaps we should call it "Frederick's Law"?
The text of it would be, "As a gaytor.rent discussion grows longer, the probability of anti-Hillary vitriol approaches 1." -
Hillary is a political figure, so she is fair game.
The left still say crap like "this wouldn't be happening if Hillary was President".
The left want to control every conversation so we can only talk about Trump. They go mental if there is any mention of Obama, Hillary and whatnot.
Both sides bait the other side, despite how much the liberals want to claim to be the sole victims.
-
I'm new to posting but I've found it a bit difficult to navigate. I'm not big on tone policing but it's so hard to read through the dense thicket of people using terms like SHILLARY and LIBTARD and it honestly does make it difficult to take the argument being made seriously. I like to discuss politics but I'm thus far finding it a bit too ad hominem to be enjoyable. That said, we can make the change we want to see. We can keep posting and model our behavior so others take a cue from how we post.
-
Clearly you are a liberal. I say that based on the 2 examples you posted of name calling.
Liberals have done more than their fair share of name calling.
I don't like the idea of having sex with a shemale, so I am a woman hater. Ironically, I'm also a woman hater for not wanting to have sex with a dude with a vag.
Don't agree with SJWs and you get labeled an 'ist or 'phobe or Nazi.
-
Clearly you are a liberal. I say that based on the 2 examples you posted of name calling.
Liberals have done more than their fair share of name calling.
I don't like the idea of having sex with a shemale, so I am a woman hater. Ironically, I'm also a woman hater for not wanting to have sex with a dude with a vag.
Don't agree with SJWs and you get labeled an 'ist or 'phobe or Nazi.
You and I have spoken previously, and I have made clear to you that I am a communist, and not a liberal. How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?
-
Communists are liberals, just further left than usual.
You should love the UK's Labour Party. It's run by a commie who supports terrorists, while claiming to be about peace.
-
Communists are liberals, just further left than usual.
You should love the UK's Labour Party. It's run by a commie who supports terrorists, while claiming to be about peace.
How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?
-
Hillary is a political figure, so she is fair game.
Very, very true. There's no disagreeing with that fact. However, what is the point of interjecting her into discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with her? If I start a thread about specific congressional Republicans deceiving their constituents and out of nowhere someone brings up Hillary Clinton who is (a) not a Republican and (b) does not have any constituents because she is not an elected official, bringing the "idea" of her up is a blatant attempt to derail the discussion and is basically :spam:.
-
Communists are liberals, just further left than usual.
You should love the UK's Labour Party. It's run by a commie who supports terrorists, while claiming to be about peace.
How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?
He has no intention on addressing your concerns because all he cares about is constantly dragging people for not having his viewpoint. If you noticed, he completely shifted from everything you brought up just so he can condemn those in the UK's Labour Party.
-
Communists are liberals, just further left than usual.
You should love the UK's Labour Party. It's run by a commie who supports terrorists, while claiming to be about peace.
How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?
He has no intention on addressing your concerns because all he cares about is constantly dragging people for not having his viewpoint. If you noticed, he completely shifted from everything you brought up just so he can condemn those in the UK's Labour Party.
He's a commie. So I pointed to the most famous commie in the UK at the moment.
Lot's of commies at the various riots who think violence is always the answer, as long as they are the ones doing it.
I already addressed his point about name calling. He's very one sided in his comments.
-
Hillary is a political figure, so she is fair game.
Very, very true. There's no disagreeing with that fact. However, what is the point of interjecting her into discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with her? If I start a thread about specific congressional Republicans deceiving their constituents and out of nowhere someone brings up Hillary Clinton who is (a) not a Republican and (b) does not have any constituents because she is not an elected official, bringing the "idea" of her up is a blatant attempt to derail the discussion and is basically :spam:.
Tell that to your fellow lefties who keep bringing her up to tell us how utopian everything would have been if she was elected.
-
Communists are liberals, just further left than usual.
You should love the UK's Labour Party. It's run by a commie who supports terrorists, while claiming to be about peace.
How is classifying me like that addressing any of my concerns?
He has no intention on addressing your concerns because all he cares about is constantly dragging people for not having his viewpoint. If you noticed, he completely shifted from everything you brought up just so he can condemn those in the UK's Labour Party.
He's a commie. So I pointed to the most famous commie in the UK at the moment.
Lot's of commies at the various riots who think violence is always the answer, as long as they are the ones doing it.
I already addressed his point about name calling. He's very one sided in his comments.
Gracious, if you think Corbyn's a communist, where politically do you place actual communists?
I was certainly one-sided in my comments because the comments on this board are rather one-sided. However, if it makes you feel better, I find it annoying when people call Trump silly names too, but not out of disrespect–it's mostly because it makes them look unhinged and failing to make any real point.
-
This board is far from one sided. All sides get to post their views, as long as it fits within the rules.
No one gets punished for posting their views, but they get punished for their actions.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login