Jump to content

Tim Walz creeps the hell out of me


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

People in the UK are being arrested for posting opinions on social media.

I looked into the first case mentioned in the video, some bloke named Wayne O'Rourke. He was literally encouraging people to go to the streets and burn down mosques. Inciting people to violence is not protected free speech anywhere.

Edited by Matthew
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I looked into the first case mentioned in the video, some bloke named Wayne O'Rourke. He was literally encouraging people to go to the streets and burn down mosques. Inciting people to violence is not protected free speech anywhere.

Where does the memo about burning down churches in Canada come from? Has anyone been arrested for that? 

There were 33 churches burned to the ground in Canada, 24 were confirmed as arson, and hundreds more vandalized. 

That's because our own federal gov't pretended that there was a mass-murder of 215 children at a rez school, and our MSM went along with it, for over a year before anyone even checked. Who has been arrested for that? 215 sounds pretty specific, right?

  • uncovered the remains of 215 children buried at the site

Uncovered? Not much room for doubt after the word "uncvered" was used.

Leftards thought that holding a severed Trump head effigy was 'comedy'. Talking about killing the president and blowing up the WH was A-ok with you guys: "protected by the first amendment". 

We had people marching in the streets in Ottawa praising Oct 7th and chanting "from the river to the sea". Any arrests?

Nah. 

Wayne O'Rourke is responding to people who are calling for genocide, and then rioting. He's no guiltier than any of the people in those other riots.  

Edited by WestCanMan

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wayne O'Rourke is responding to people who are calling for genocide, and then rioting. He's no guiltier than any of the people in those other riots.  

Honestly I respect the straightforward admitting he is calling for violence and then trying to defend his reason for doing so versus the cowards on the right who would spend hours trying to debate some random semantics and claim this is a free speech issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Violated a court order, dress it up however you like he is not accused of violating any law against misgendering

Then by what power did the court make that order.

Sorry kid - dress it up as you like he was jailed for misgendering. 

59 minutes ago, Matthew said:

You're comparing transphobic people to slaves? T

This is a very common debate tactic on the left and one of the more disgusting. 

What you're saying is that you know i was right but you don't like it - so you'll try to create some emotional argument by twisting what i said into something i didn't say and then arguing with that. 

Those who repress others always have an excuse. That's what i said.  If you can't make your point without dishonesty then you don't have a good point to begin with 

Quote

 

Slippery slope fallacy.


 

No. And stop using words that you don't understand.  Slippery slope is something entirely different, that would be if i said IF you do this THEN  you will have to excuse rape. IF you were going to claim any fallacy it would be reducio ad absurdum and you'd STILL be wrong.

It is simply an example of your logic applied to a circumstance where you can more clearly see how ridiculous it is. 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

You and others are choosing to elevate this fringe movement as the object of your constant political attacks. It will ultimately result in these gender identity concepts being more quickly normalized and accepted by society.

Myself and others are responding to attacks on freedom and our own rights and the rights of others.  And sure kid - history really shows that what happens is that their rights go more quickly and that the pendulum never swings back :)  Read a book sometime. 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Its not a cycle like that.

It has always been a cycle like that. Gays and such have at many times in history been completely accepted and then completely rejected and back again. Look at rome.  then look at europe 500 years later. Then look at france where they practically had gay marrage for a time. Then it was  impure again. Etc etc. 

Again, read a book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matthew said:

Honestly I respect the straightforward admitting he is calling for violence and then trying to defend his reason for doing so versus the cowards on the right who would spend hours trying to debate some random semantics and claim this is a free speech issue.

He's guilty of calling for violence against people who are allowed to call for violence. That's what you're saying. 

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WestCanMan said:

He's guilty of calling for violence against people who are allowed to call for violence. That's what you're saying. 

Anyone calling for violence should not expect any free speech protections for doing so. The present issue is whether people are being prosecuted for simply having certain opinions or exercising free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

Anyone calling for violence should not expect any free speech protections for doing so. The present issue is whether people are being prosecuted for simply having certain opinions or exercising free speech.

BLM rioters got away with it, didn't they...? The politicians in the US got away with inciting, condoning and financially supporting BLM rioting, right?

Michelle Obama told HS/College grads to "Stay angry, focus your anger, and never let anyone tell you not to be angry" during the height of the riots in the US. 

Kamala gushed about the prospects of the riots lasting until after Christmas, then she pimped a bail fund to get the worst of the rioters back on the streets.

How did you go from "Inciting violence is AWESOME!" to "Inciting violence is a crime" so fast? 

When you talk about Kamala, do you just suppress that sentiment briefly, and then just allow it to return whenever it's convenient?

How about if you take your hypocrisy, stupidity, situational ethics and selective outrage and f-off, dummy?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then by what power did the court make that order.

Courts are granted by law limited procedural power that includes temporarily jailing people for not cooperating with juducial procedeedings. Heres how contempt of court works in the US, I'm sure it's similar up your way

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Those who repress others always have an excuse.

Indeed, as I am witnessing.

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Slippery slope is something entirely different, that would be if i said IF you do this THEN  you will have to excuse rape.

Agreed, exactly the rationale you used: IF I consider the context of why the people were actually prosecuted THEN I "might as well try to justfy rape."

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Myself and others are responding to attacks on freedom and our own rights and the rights of others.

I will help respond to such attacks if I am shown a real example of this. I did somewhat agree with a couple things in your original list, but overall your claim so far seems very exaggerated.

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Gays and such have at many times in history been completely accepted and then completely rejected and back again. Look at rome

Fair point, I like a more big picture historical view. Though pre-christian greco-roman culture was almost completely different had its own ideas about sexuality compared to the more christianized germanic-based european culture than developed later on. There was never a social and political stuggle to gain normalization and acceptance of gay sex in ancient Greece or rome.

Edited by Matthew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Thousands of people across US during the 2020 race protests were arrested.

And Dems let them right back out whenever they were within their jurisdiction, or used Kamala's bail fund to get them out when they weren't.

Riots were the Dems' #1 priority.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Courts are granted by law limited procedural power that includes temporarily jailing people for not cooperating with juducial procedeedings. Heres how contempt of court works in the US, I'm sure it's similar up your way

similar but not the same. The court cannot ask people to do something without the law backing them. Which is why our courts very rarely hand out the kind of punative financial settlements we see happening in the states.

End of the day - the guy went to jail because he wanted to call his daughter his daughter. 

Quote

Indeed, as I am witnessing.

Typing in front of a mirror are you?

Still no sensible reply or argument? Can't address the point? Have to dance around it? Well imagine that. 

 

Quote

Agreed, exactly the rationale you used: IF I consider the context of why the people were actually prosecuted THEN I "might as well try to justfy rape."

No, that's still not slippery slope nor did i say you would have to,  I said you might as well.  Slippery slope says "If this then THAT is the  result. If we allow this then later that will happen.  "allow one migrant in and then you'll have to allow all of them in".   Not a comparison, like "if you agree to letting migrants in then you might as well also agree with broccoli for  dinner" .  

Holy shit kid - i spelled it out for you, how are you STILL getting it wrong. 

Quote

I will help respond to such attacks if I am shown a real example of this

I have a funny feeling you'll just dismiss any such attacks as "not a real example". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The court cannot ask people to do something without the law backing them.

That's true, and maybe in the case in question other courts on appeal might rule that the original court order violated the man's freedom of speech. Its certainly a grey area situation. Conservatives aren't wrong to have their guard up about free speech. Everyone should all the time. But we also need to be on guard against unreasonable propaganda and manipulation. When people are being whipped up into a frenzy about alleged free speech violations, you still have to examine the soecifics to see if it's exactly the way they are portraying it.

 

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I have a funny feeling you'll just dismiss any such attacks as "not a real example". 

Not true. I'm not beholden to any dogma or political movement. I'm cautiously far-left in many of my views but have no problem  critiquing my own side or supporting principled conservative/libertarian/nationalist positions that I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Walz is somewhat of a role model to me. Like myself, Walz has a DUI, and he turned his life around. However, I am concerned due to the fact he lied about the circumstances of his DUI in 2006, over a decade after he was arrested.  I tend to be brutally honest with the circumstances of my DUI.

 

C'mon Tim. You can do better. George W Bush had a DUI too, and he came clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Tim Walz is somewhat of a role model to me.

He's a drunk criminal with no honour who lied about his achievements and has lost the respect of his peers again and again. 

Yeah - looking at you i can see it.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Tim Walz is somewhat of a role model to me. Like myself, Walz has a DUI, and he turned his life around.

1. Not all DUIs are equal. I've never had one - not even a 24-hr suspension - but I'm not gonna pretend to be 100% innocent either. I'm sure that at some point in my life I've topped 0.07 and still driven a car, but never as drunk as 0.128, nor driving that fast. 96 mph at 0.128 is very extreme drinking and driving. That's basically murder-driving. Not all cars are even designed to be driven that fast. Ditto for tires. There are a lot of cars that don't have the braking or cornering ability to be driven at that speed, although they can achieve it. Not all tires are safe to drive on at 96mph either. The rubber can be too soft to corner properly at that speed, or they can even blow out - especially if it's hot. (I can't find an article that sates what kind of car he was driving at the time.)  

2. It's just an assumption that he 'turned his life around' at that point. I know people who have driven drunk hundreds of times and never got caught. It's not like a 50/50 prospect. It's possible that he drove drunk 500 times after that but just didn't get caught, or weaselled his way out with more lies about the military (I was just at a funeral for one of my war buddies 😢 ). All we know for sure is that no other drunk-driving charges ever stuck after that. 

3. Choose Trump as a role model. When he saw what alcohol did to his brother, he just decided not to drink, and he doesn't. He didn't have to make a colossal mistake so that he learned from it, like Walz always seems to need to do.

4. In typical Timmy Tampon fashion, 4a. Walz never apologized for it himself, he had 'his campaign do it for him, 4b. when his campaign did apologize for him, they just lied their faces off. 4c. He also used his military service as part of trying to weasel out of his lie CNN:

  • in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night (lie 1), claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss (lie2) from his time in the National Guard (military excuses and lies again). The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night (lie 3). None of that was true.

Is that really how one "turns their life around", DUI? Just get someone else to tell as many lies as they can about something on your behalf? That's not a good start, is it....   

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Not all DUIs are equal. I've never had one - not even a 24-hr suspension - but I'm not gonna pretend to be 100% innocent either. I'm sure that at some point in my life I've topped 0.07 and still driven a car, but never as drunk as 0.128, nor driving that fast. 96 mph at 0.128 is very extreme drinking and driving. That's basically murder-driving. Not all cars are even designed to be driven that fast. Ditto for tires. There are a lot of cars that don't have the braking or cornering ability to be driven at that speed, although they can achieve it. Not all tires are safe to drive on at 96mph either. The rubber can be too soft to corner properly at that speed, or they can even blow out - especially if it's hot. (I can't find an article that sates what kind of car he was driving at the time.)  

I definitely did not drive that speed when I was hungover-drunk the morning after. I was just foolish, as I backed up and hit a parked car, and blew a 0.11. I get my Interlock device taken off in 3 months. 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 

 

3. Choose Trump as a role model. When he saw what alcohol did to his brother, he just decided not to drink, and he doesn't. He didn't have to make a colossal mistake so that he learned from it, like Walz always seems to need to do.

Trump rapes women though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

I definitely did not drive that speed when I was hungover-drunk the morning after. 

 

Oh - you're one of the GOOD kind of drunk drivers. I see.  🙄🙄🙄

 

Quote

Trump rapes women though...

Never actually charged with that or the like. 

Best you can say is he's probably sexually touched them inappropriately which is sexual assault but that's about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

I definitely did not drive that speed when I was hungover-drunk the morning after. I was just foolish, as I backed up and hit a parked car, and blew a 0.11. I get my Interlock device taken off in 3 months. 

Trump rapes women though...

Trump has never raped a woman. Even E J Caroll herself told her own story, where by her own story she wasn't raped.

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump has never raped a woman. Even E J Caroll herself told her own story, where by her own story she wasn't raped.

Not to worry. Trump comes from a long list of presidents who raped.

some Kennedy's raped

Bush raped

Clinton raped

Trump raped

It's ok if you are rich and powerful. 

Just now, DUI_Offender said:

Not to worry. Trump comes from a long list of presidents who raped.

some Kennedy's raped

Bush raped

Clinton raped

Trump raped

It's ok if you are rich and powerful. 

Come to think of it, everyone but Trump has drove drunk. I wonder if there is a correlation between driving drunk and rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Not to worry. Trump comes from a long list of presidents who raped.

some Kennedy's raped

Bush raped

Clinton raped

Trump raped

It's ok if you are rich and powerful. 

Come to think of it, everyone but Trump has drove drunk. I wonder if there is a correlation between driving drunk and rape.

You keep saying "Trump raped", so who did he rape? Do you have a name, or is it just better to keep it vague, like Kamala's election platform? 

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Not to worry. Trump comes from a long list of presidents who raped.

some Kennedy's raped

Bush raped

Clinton raped

Trump raped

It's ok if you are rich and powerful. 

Come to think of it, everyone but Trump has drove drunk. I wonder if there is a correlation between driving drunk and rape.

Bush raped? I haven't heard that before.  Got handsy i heard but not raped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,818
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
    • nibu earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...