Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

humtake

Subscribe to humtake's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

"A "criminal" means someone that has been convicted of a crime in a court of law."

Actually, the legal definition I see is "A criminal is someone who has violated the law, either through an act or omission, and is subject to legal prosecution." But, we all know definitions vary based on where you find it so I wouldn't bet on any of them.

"Republicans have held these attitudes towards the poor since Nixon."

The fact liberals have such a hard time using good logic is astounding. When multiple liberal states have had liberal politicians create laws that disadvantage the homeless, basically moving them around like rats, your argument is invalid. Liberal states have actually created harsher laws than Con states when it comes to the poor, look it up. It's because the rich liberals in those states do everything they can to ensure homeless NIMBY away from their location. Sure, Reps aren't innocent because their laws are basically to just remove the homeless to somewhere else, which is also a nonsolution. But your illogical description of Reps for not liking homeless has no basis in reality and it never has. If you believe otherwise, then you have to accept that your argument also applies to liberals beyond any contestation.

"I'd like to ask BOAZ; why all the animosity toward immigrants when we all know we are descndents of immigrants?"

Fair enough and I'll give a rebuttal (not sure if Boaz already has). Now let me ask you, how come when people started asking liberals to take in illegal immigrants to get rid of the stress on the government they balked and came up with all kinds of reasons? Using your logic, one could easily also incorrectly then ask you why all the animosity toward immigrants. How come when illegals get shipped to liberal playgrounds like Martha's then liberals get mad about it and whine and cry? How come this happens in multiple "sanctuary" locations. And you can't say it's because they weren't prepared...because then you are parroting Reps entire issue with illegal immigrants in the first place.

It truly only takes a tiny amount of thought to not be a hypocrite. It takes a little more effort to be objective. But I promise you that doing both will make your life so much more fulfilling and allow you to understand all sides to a problem and stop thinking your narrative is the only right one.

"But ANYTHING that poses a threat to the worthless garbage scum pigs is ok with me. As far as I'm concerned, they should stop beating their spouses long enough to use their guns to put bullets in their own worthless heads. The world would be better off without them in it."

So the 11 million positive interactions cops have with people every year is completely ignored because a thousand may be bad (and a thousand is a VERY high estimate, actual interactions that go bad are much less than that...but lets use those numbers). So that equates to something like .00009ish percent (may be missing a leading zero so sue me) but let's call it .0001% of ease of math. And that makes you believe they should kill themselves and that they are all spouse beaters because some do things they shouldn't. Remember that because that is your logical precedent.

Let me educate you on why your hypocrisy is so bad for America. If .0001% of a group causes that entire group to be bad, then you are actually agreeing that all illegal immigrants are bad. I mean, it's only a tiny percent (once you get to .0001% the measurement can just be called a "tiny percent") of them that commit rape, murders, etc. In fact, there were more examples in the media last year of illegal immigrants causing major crimes than police causing major crimes btw. But, since liberals agree that a tiny percent can ---- the entire population according to their logical precedent, then liberals must agree that illegal immigrants are bad and should all kill themselves. Or just finally accept you are a hypocritical party that has decayed so that you can start on the path to recovery and maybe become an effective party again that can prevent someone like Trump from actually being considered a legitimate political candidate.

"2 Judges, Samuel Alito and Clearance Thomas, have proven they have no interest in what the constitution of the United States says."

Evidence? It can't be abortion because the Constitution is pretty clear what states are responsible for and what the Feds are responsible for and the judges followed that. In fact, by the very definition of "progressive" and "liberal", your party's MO is to change which inherently means not always going with the grain. Conservatives want the country to stay traditional. Reps want to keep everything how it was when the Constitution was written (to varying degrees) and Dems want to change everything to meet current political and social climates regardless of what is written in the Constitution (to varying degrees).

Both sides are needed in any government like ours. What isn't needed are people whining and crying because their side isn't winning at any given time, and then not even understanding their own party's ideology by somehow insinuating that Reps are bad for being Conservative. It's their nature to follow the Constitution, for good and bad. Dems want progress so they want things to chain, so it is their nature to argue the Constitution and make changes to keep up with the times. Which means your quote above is absolutely wrong and you are just mad that the CHANGES you want made to the Constitution haven't occurred yet. Common sense and critical thinking were thrown away by the Dem party in favor of hypocrisy and double standards. And the result...an idiot like Trump can get voted in.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy