Republicans: continued

[Tero]

Cunt's view is the same as Marjorie Three Names' view: No whacking off of penises and breasts by liberal parents who have brain washed their kids to be trans. Surely some conversion therapy could have made them normal again?

[Joe]

You asked if I was implying something.

I answered clearly.

Your turn. Unless you just want to troll. That's cool too.

Naw, trolling isn't cool and violates the play nice rule. Maybe you should report me to the Mods so they can decide.

What can go wrong?

You don't have an opinion worth attempting to understand then. I'm fine with that.

My my. Personal attacks now. How original.

Not an attack, I just have no idea what you think of the matter.

If you took a position I might attack it, but you seem to be more a fan of other people's opinions.

Maybe you are a fact-checker! Zeigler (the guy behind marco polo and bidencrimes.info) has some sort of a bounty on anyone finding them wrong on a substantive matter. You could make some bank!

I've already stated my position. If you wish to attempt an intelligent response, go back and respond to it.

Given your continued evasion of Jim's very reasonable question, I don't expect you have the spoons for that.

[Joe]

Cunt's view is the same as Marjorie Three Names' view: No whacking off of penises and breasts by liberal parents who have brain washed their kids to be trans. Surely some conversion therapy could have made them normal again?

He certainly parrots trans-phobic talking points and cites trans-phobic sources. I don't know if he's sincere in supporting these views or just using them as a prop for trolling, but that question is less and less important to me as his incessant repitition goes on.

What I wonder is if the forum is becoming an unwitting platform for these views.

[Cunt]

I answered, but you can't, won't, or don't understand the question.

By 'transexual' do you mean someone who lives as the opposite sex, under the radar? Or someone who insists others talk to and about them a certain way?

A trans person? Or a trans activist? They are different categories, though I understand you have trouble with simple categories, like 'women' or 'female'. It's a tricky topic for you to write around.

[Tero]

Descriptions of Johnson's.....Johnson soon to come.

[Cunt]

Maybe Avanatti will be out for season 3!!

[Joe]

Cunt's view is the same as Marjorie Three Names' view: No whacking off of penises and breasts by liberal parents who have brain washed their kids to be trans. Surely some conversion therapy could have made them normal again?

He certainly parrots trans-phobic talking points and cites trans-phobic sources. I don't know if he's sincere in supporting these views or just using them as a prop for trolling, but that question is less and less important to me as his incessant repitition goes on.

What I wonder is if the forum is becoming an unwitting platform for these views.

A good point was made on another forum regarding these kinds of posts:

You're right @mindhack. There has to be an opportunity for a frank and honest, good faith exchange. On the other hand, disingenuous opinion-giving can only bc repeated and challenged so often before it starts appearing to normalise denigration, discrimination and the devaluation of transgender people's rights.

Something to keep in mind.

[Joe]

I answered, but you can't, won't, or don't understand the question.

By 'transexual' do you mean someone who lives as the opposite sex, under the radar? Or someone who insists others talk to and about them a certain way?

A trans person? Or a trans activist? They are different categories, though I understand you have trouble with simple categories, like 'women' or 'female'. It's a tricky topic for you to write around.

So let me get this straight. In one post you claim I haven't taken a position and in the next that you responded to my position.

I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions about that.

[pErvinalia]

I think he's talking about Jim's question.

[Joe]

Hard to tell.

[Tero]

Threads

aaron.rupar
10m
so to recap, here's what Republicans are up to today
-- one House Republican accused another of sucker punching him in the Capitol
-- for the second time in recent months, a Republican senator challenged a hearing witness to a fistfight
these are children

mrs.c1
Do not insult children by comparing them to these GOP terrorists !

[Sean Hayden]

—meh, ever watch the shit show brits put on?

[Brian Peacock]

Oh yeah. It's a farce in a circus riding a clown car at the moment.

[Tero]

Chip Roy angry.

Johnson may not last till January.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Swinging testosterone dick Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma made noises about physically fighting a witness at a Senate hearing, as mentioned by Tero above. Now he says that he woulda, but 'political correctness' held him back. Since when did Oklahoma tough guys care about political correctness?

'Senator whines that "political correctness" stopped him fighting witness in U.S. Capitol'

The senator who challenged a hearing witness to a brawl in the U.S. Capitol said only "political correctness" stopped him from following through on his threat.

During the hearing, Mullin got into a back-and-forth with Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, in which Mullin challenged him to a fight and O'Brien expressed his willingness to take him up on it.

During the Fox segment, host Sean Hannity asked Mullin why society has become so "woke" that it no longer allows people to settle their differences with fist-fights, to which Mullin replied that it's due to "political correctness."

“All of a sudden you got to worry about somebody’s feelings but oh, by the way, the left can say whatever they want,” Mullin said.