|
Post by bobloblaw on Dec 22, 2016 16:05:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 22, 2016 16:20:19 GMT -5
Not even Cletus McGillicuddy and his Jug Band? Most of those guys understand they're going to lose a good portion of their future audiences if they play a gig for Trump, because that's how polarizing he is. In addition, I wouldn't do any service for Trump except for cash, up front, and I'd get one of those pens to verify the authenticity of the bills before I took them. I'd imagine a lot of people feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Dec 22, 2016 18:59:18 GMT -5
not shocked, most useless liberal bands are just that, useless
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 22, 2016 21:50:06 GMT -5
not shocked, most useless liberal bands are just that, useless You are the master of the tautology. What about selling ambassadorships in exchange for entertainment? That's influence peddling, and something a lot like it got Rod Blagovich sent up.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Dec 22, 2016 21:54:17 GMT -5
not shocked, most useless liberal bands are just that, useless You are the master of the tautology. What about selling ambassadorships in exchange for entertainment? That's influence peddling, and something a lot like it got Rod Blagovich sent up. LOL. You're assuming the site is credible. That's a huge, huge leap.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 22, 2016 21:56:44 GMT -5
LOL. You're assuming the site is credible. That's a huge, huge leap. Because if it ain't Breit, it ain't right, eh, kongo?
|
|
|
Post by winston on Dec 23, 2016 15:10:32 GMT -5
not shocked, most useless liberal bands are just that, useless What is a liberal band?
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Dec 23, 2016 15:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 23, 2016 15:30:39 GMT -5
not shocked, most useless liberal bands are just that, useless What is a liberal band? Apparently, darn near all of them!
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Dec 23, 2016 15:40:03 GMT -5
Apparently, darn near all of them! Most of the artsy fartsy types are liberal.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 23, 2016 18:39:57 GMT -5
Most of the artsy fartsy types are liberal. But who needs art, music, literature and philosophy anyway, right?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 24, 2016 9:38:33 GMT -5
Not even Cletus McGillicuddy and his Jug Band? Most of those guys understand they're going to lose a good portion of their future audiences if they play a gig for Trump, because that's how polarizing he is. In addition, I wouldn't do any service for Trump except for cash, up front, and I'd get one of those pens to verify the authenticity of the bills before I took them. I'd imagine a lot of people feel that way. He's only "polarizing" because the Left can't abide anyone that disagrees with their Communist and Animist religion. They do things like getting people fired for supporting causes they don't like, personally attacking them socially, and physically, and publicly ostracize people. They are dictators, and won't accept anything less than absolute obedience to their platform of "tolerance".
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 24, 2016 9:39:35 GMT -5
Only one. She must be a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 24, 2016 13:16:35 GMT -5
He's only "polarizing" because the Left can't abide anyone that disagrees with their Communist and Animist religion. They do things like getting people fired for supporting causes they don't like, personally attacking them socially, and physically, and publicly ostracize people. That's certainly part of it. The other part is that he's a crude, boorish, classless and immature bully. That opinion is supported by words from his own mouth and keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Dec 24, 2016 14:25:52 GMT -5
Who cares anyway, it means nothing to us out here that work for a living.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 24, 2016 15:19:36 GMT -5
He's only "polarizing" because the Left can't abide anyone that disagrees with their Communist and Animist religion. They do things like getting people fired for supporting causes they don't like, personally attacking them socially, and physically, and publicly ostracize people. That's certainly part of it. The other part is that he's a crude, boorish, classless and immature bully. That opinion is supported by words from his own mouth and keyboard. Really? I suppose The Felon couldn't possibly be crude, boorish, classless, and immature, because she's both a woman and a Democrat, right? Calling a quarter of the country 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable' isn't any of those things. Saying that one has to have " a private opinion and a public opinion" couldn't possibly be any of those, right? And of course, with the LR media screaming lies about what he actually says doesn't fall into any of those catagories, right?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 24, 2016 16:22:35 GMT -5
Really? I suppose The Felon couldn't possibly be crude, boorish, classless, and immature, because she's both a woman and a Democrat, right? Calling a quarter of the country 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable' isn't any of those things. Saying that one has to have " a private opinion and a public opinion" couldn't possibly be any of those, right? And of course, with the LR media screaming lies about what he actually says doesn't fall into any of those catagories, right? I always know when you can't refute a point, because you then have to explain - sometimes incorrectly - how Hillary is as bad or worse. In this case, she's not as bad or worse. She's not the one who can't control her temper on Twitter. Who grabs women by the p***y. Who has a whole vocabulary of demeaning terms for people he dislikes. That's Trump. It's what he is. Own it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 24, 2016 16:33:03 GMT -5
Really? I suppose The Felon couldn't possibly be crude, boorish, classless, and immature, because she's both a woman and a Democrat, right? Calling a quarter of the country 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable' isn't any of those things. Saying that one has to have " a private opinion and a public opinion" couldn't possibly be any of those, right? And of course, with the LR media screaming lies about what he actually says doesn't fall into any of those catagories, right? I always know when you can't refute a point, because you then have to explain - sometimes incorrectly - how Hillary is as bad or worse. In this case, she's not as bad or worse. She's not the one who can't control her temper on Twitter. Who grabs women by the p***y. Who has a whole vocabulary of demeaning terms for people he dislikes. That's Trump. It's what he is. Own it. I don't think redleg is arguing that Trump isn't crude and boorish. The point is that Hillary is also crude and boorish, and that wouldn't have stopped anyone from performing at her inauguration. MANY entertainers are also crude and boorish. If that is, say Rihanna's or Miley Cyrus' reason for refusing to perform.... LMAO. Face it, they won't perform because either they hate Trump's politics, or they're hypocrites. They should own their hypocrisy... or be honest that they hate Trump and think his voters are deplorable.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 24, 2016 16:42:54 GMT -5
The point is that Hillary is also crude and boorish, and that wouldn't have stopped anyone from performing at her inauguration. Hillary isn't the president-elect. She is, in fact, irrelevant. When Pubs bring her up it's always because they can't refute a claims, so they try to deflect attention away from it. Pretty standard bad debating technique, frequently employed by redleg. If that is, say Rihanna's or Miley Cyrus' reason for refusing to perform.... LMAO. I would imagine in the case of female performers it has more to do with his deep-seated misogyny. As far as not performing if they dislike him... you're in the crowd that thinks people should be free to refuse to serve people for reasons of sexual orientation. So you haven't got much of a leg, there. Indeed, refusing to serve Trump for his politics (something he can control) isn't as bad as refusing him for his sexual orientation (something experts say isn't under our control).
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Dec 24, 2016 16:59:25 GMT -5
Really? I suppose The Felon couldn't possibly be crude, boorish, classless, and immature, because she's both a woman and a Democrat, right? Calling a quarter of the country 'deplorable' and 'irredeemable' isn't any of those things. Saying that one has to have " a private opinion and a public opinion" couldn't possibly be any of those, right? And of course, with the LR media screaming lies about what he actually says doesn't fall into any of those catagories, right? I always know when you can't refute a point, because you then have to explain - sometimes incorrectly - how Hillary is as bad or worse. In this case, she's not as bad or worse. She's not the one who can't control her temper on Twitter. Who grabs women by the p***y. Who has a whole vocabulary of demeaning terms for people he dislikes. That's Trump. It's what he is. Own it. She is worse. Besides, you don't know that she doesn't do those things. Particularly grabbing women by the p***y.
|
|
|
Post by bobloblaw on Dec 24, 2016 17:27:28 GMT -5
No Obama, no Hillary, what are they going to have to talk about on AM radio?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 24, 2016 18:46:16 GMT -5
She is worse. Besides, you don't know that she doesn't do those things. Particularly grabbing women by the p***y. That's your opinion, and without proof your statement is baseless.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 24, 2016 19:07:48 GMT -5
The point is that Hillary is also crude and boorish, and that wouldn't have stopped anyone from performing at her inauguration. Hillary isn't the president-elect. She is, in fact, irrelevant. When Pubs bring her up it's always because they can't refute a claims, so they try to deflect attention away from it. Pretty standard bad debating technique, frequently employed by redleg. She's not irrelevant. Not in a conversation suggesting that the reason celebrities aren't performing at Trump's inauguration because he's crude and boorish. She, too, has a record of being crude and boorish. If that's the reason they won't perform for Trump, then why were they trying to get the electoral college to flip for Hillary as recently as last week? You don't think performers like Miley Cyrus think misogyny is a problem, do you? She who gets naked and twerks on stage for big piles of cash? Or Rihanna - you know "sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me." Let's be realistic, if this were Bill Clinton being re-elected, Cyrus would offer her p*ssy up for him to grab on stage, at the event. Or any of the numerous rappers who go on at great lengths about 'hos' and b*tches? These people trade in sexism and misogyny. They'd be broke without it. Look, I don't expect them to perform on command. But I will call out hypocrisy when I see it, and I see it in spades in the suggestion that they won't perform for Trump because he's crude, boorish and sexist. Now, if they won't perform for Trump because they're petty and hate him because of his politics, that makes perfect sense and is consistent with their business models.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 24, 2016 19:33:34 GMT -5
You don't think performers like Miley Cyrus think misogyny is a problem, do you? She who gets naked and twerks on stage for big piles of cash? Or Rihanna - you know "sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me." There's a difference, of course, between what people do on their own initiative and what other people do to them, unwanted or because they have the power to do it. You're smart enough to see it, but you're refusing to so you can defend the indefensible. Let's be realistic, if this were Bill Clinton being re-elected, Cyrus would offer her p*ssy up for him to grab on stage, at the event. Or any of the numerous rappers who go on at great lengths about 'hos' and b*tches? These people trade in sexism and misogyny. They'd be broke without it. Entirely your opinion as regards what Cyrus would do. I doubt Trump asked any rappers to perform, but if he had they'd likely refuse on suspicion he's a racist. See, there's so much to dislike about the man, almost every group can find its own reason! The point is, their misogyny isn't relevant because it's not their reason - so they're not hypocrites. Look, I don't expect them to perform on command. But I will call out hypocrisy when I see it, and I see it in spades in the suggestion that they won't perform for Trump because he's crude, boorish and sexist. If you'd make this case with facts, maybe you'd be onto something.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 24, 2016 19:47:44 GMT -5
You don't think performers like Miley Cyrus think misogyny is a problem, do you? She who gets naked and twerks on stage for big piles of cash? Or Rihanna - you know "sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me." There's a difference, of course, between what people do on their own initiative and what other people do to them, unwanted or because they have the power to do it. You're smart enough to see it, but you're refusing to so you can defend the indefensible. Let's be realistic, if this were Bill Clinton being re-elected, Cyrus would offer her p*ssy up for him to grab on stage, at the event. Or any of the numerous rappers who go on at great lengths about 'hos' and b*tches? These people trade in sexism and misogyny. They'd be broke without it. Entirely your opinion as regards what Cyrus would do. I doubt Trump asked any rappers to perform, but if he had they'd likely refuse on suspicion he's a racist. See, there's so much to dislike about the man, almost every group can find its own reason! The point is, their misogyny isn't relevant because it's not their reason - so they're not hypocrites. Look, I don't expect them to perform on command. But I will call out hypocrisy when I see it, and I see it in spades in the suggestion that they won't perform for Trump because he's crude, boorish and sexist. If you'd make this case with facts, maybe you'd be onto something. Well, that's just it. It's obvious to me the reason they won't perform is because they hate him over political disagreements. We're witnessing Hollywood's bigotry here, not Trump's. There's no evidence Trump is racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or anything else beyond simply crude and boorish. People simply assume it because Hollywood types have been accusing him of it for 18 months now. Most (not all) of the things these people dislike him for are figments of their own bigoted imagination. And the crudeness and boorishness that he is absolutely guilty of is endemic in the people who complain about it in him.
|
|