Meryl 'over-rated' Streep picks on po' pussy-grabber

Trump blasts Meryl Streep after Golden Globes speech
Dylan Stableford

President-elect Donald Trump is firing back at Meryl Streep after the actress used her acceptance speech for the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes to scold him for mocking a disabled reporter during the presidential campaign.

“Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn’t know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes,” Trump tweeted, noting that Streep had campaigned for his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

“She is a Hillary flunky who lost big,” Trump wrote.

During her speech, the 67-year-old three-time Oscar winner said there were “many, many powerful performances” by actors this year, “but there was one performance this year that stunned” her.

“It sank its hooks in my heart,” she said. “Not because it was good; there was nothing good about it. But it was effective, and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back.”

During a rally in November 2015, Trump launched into an impression of Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times reporter who suffers from arthrogryposis, a congenital joint condition, after Kovaleski pushed back against Trump’s use of a 2001 article he wrote as proof of the candidate’s false assertion that “thousands and thousands of people” in Muslim neighborhoods in New Jersey were cheering in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.



“It kind of broke my heart when I saw it,” Streep continued. “And I still can’t get it out of my head, because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life. And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kinda gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

Trump has claimed he wasn’t mocking Kovaleski’s disability, but merely his nerves. At the time, Kovaleski said he had interviewed Trump in his office and was once on a first-name basis with the real estate magnate. “Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him,” Trump said of the reporter in 2015.

“I was never mocking anyone,” Trump told the Times on Sunday night. “I was calling into question a reporter who had gotten nervous because he had changed his story.
“People keep saying I intended to mock the reporter’s disability, as if Meryl Streep and others could read my mind, and I did no such thing,” Trump continued.

On Monday, Trump again sought to clarify his impersonation of Kovaleski.
“For the 100th time, I never ‘mocked’ a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him ‘groveling’ when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Just more very dishonest media!”

In an interview with “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager and senior adviser, said Streep’s comments were concerning.
“I’m concerned that somebody with a platform like Meryl Streep’s is inciting people’s worst instincts,” Conway said.

GOOD ONYA,  MERYL  !!!

Telling it like it is..


Trump disgraced himself, publicly knocking the disabled and mocking decent people in general.
Proving just what a lowlife piece-of-shit he really is..    

And then 25.4% of American voters still voted for him...


Showing us that, effectively,  a quarter of the American public look down on the disabled, the sick and injured --  and really don't care about electing a disgusting, disreputable and traitorus charlatan as their next head-of-state --  to them it's totally fine to make jokes about disabled persons..

Just as long as they can imagine themselves "sticking it to the 'establishment'" --  even if it's still a maverick elitist bigmouth corporate bullyboy goon that they chose for that job !        

It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

It's bad enough--horrible!--the way he acts in the first instance.  But then to lie about it to those of us who watched it happen, and expect that he still has any credibility...

What this country needs is a good, hard depression...punishment for it's behavior. Maybe Trump and his Russian friends can manage that.

Well in the first place, Meryl Streep is a fine actress!
Secondly does anyone really take this guy seriously anymore? What president thinks it's okay to stoop to a level of tit-for-tat shit like that?

Hasn't he got some preparation to do...for like, oh I dunno, the country he's supposed to be running? Someone might want to remind him, perhaps.

eddie wrote:Well in the first place, Meryl Streep is a fine actress!
Secondly does anyone really take this guy seriously anymore? What president thinks it's okay to stoop to a level of tit-for-tat shit like that?

Hasn't he got some preparation to do...for like, oh I dunno, the country he's supposed to be running? Someone might want to remind him, perhaps.

It's the American people who should be scolded for this.  They are the irresponsible ones for electing a n'ere-do-well like this.  

I'm sure many thought it was a practical joke, but practical jokes are dangerous around whimsical dunces like pussy-grabber.

I didn't think Trump was mocking the disabled tbh.

Re Meryl Streep, I can see why some people think she's over-rated as an actress, but she has a certain charm about her and a rather poignant aura - I think she's fab.

Raggamuffin wrote:I didn't think Trump was mocking the disabled tbh.

Re Meryl Streep, I can see why some people think she's over-rated as an actress, but she has a certain charm about her and a rather poignant aura - I think she's fab.

Of course he was.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I didn't think Trump was mocking the disabled tbh.

Re Meryl Streep, I can see why some people think she's over-rated as an actress, but she has a certain charm about her and a rather poignant aura - I think she's fab.

Of course he was.

That's not the impression I got.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course he was.

That's not the impression I got.

What impression did you get Rags...that he was having a jittery episode himself whilst making fun of the disabled journalist?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not the impression I got.

What impression did you get Rags...that he was having a jittery episode himself whilst making fun of the disabled journalist?

I think he was simulating the guy being confused and panicky - he was flapping both arms around. As I understand it, the guy can't move his arm much anyway.

He was mocking him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

What impression did you get Rags...that he was having a jittery episode himself whilst making fun of the disabled journalist?

I think he was simulating the guy being confused and panicky - he was flapping both arms around. As I understand it, the guy can't move his arm much anyway.

Oh for goodness sake....watch the video.
Even before Meryl Streep spoke out it was obvious that he was mocking a disabled man.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think he was simulating the guy being confused and panicky - he was flapping both arms around. As I understand it, the guy can't move his arm much anyway.

Oh for goodness sake....watch the video.
Even before Meryl Streep spoke out it was obvious that he was mocking a disabled man.

I watched it, and I stand by the conclusion I came to. If others disagree, that's up to them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Oh for goodness sake....watch the video.
Even before Meryl Streep spoke out it was obvious that he was mocking a disabled man.

I watched it, and I stand by the conclusion I came to. If others disagree, that's up to them.

He was clearly mocking the guy but besides that, it really isn't okay for a would-be president to start engaging in silly wars with an actress. People don't want to hear that shit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not the impression I got.

What impression did you get Rags...that he was having a jittery episode himself whilst making fun of the disabled journalist?

I think he was simulating the guy being confused and panicky - he was flapping both arms around. As I understand it, the guy can't move his arm much anyway.

I've never seen anybody mock someone for being confused and panicky by flapping their arms around, especially holding their hands at odd angles exactly like this disabled reporter holds his right hand.

It also fits his pattern of mocking or attacking literally everybody else of note who has publicly criticized him.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think he was simulating the guy being confused and panicky - he was flapping both arms around. As I understand it, the guy can't move his arm much anyway.

I've never seen anybody mock someone for being confused and panicky by flapping their arms around, especially holding their hands at odd angles exactly like this disabled reporter holds his right hand.

It also fits his pattern of mocking or attacking literally everybody else of note who has publicly criticized him.

Really? You haven't lived.

Also as a public figure
Why does he think someone doesn't know him?
does he think they should know him personally cause it doesn't work that way for anyone let alone a famous person and even less so a president

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I've never seen anybody mock someone for being confused and panicky by flapping their arms around, especially holding their hands at odd angles exactly like this disabled reporter holds his right hand.

It also fits his pattern of mocking or attacking literally everybody else of note who has publicly criticized him.

Really? You haven't lived.

Well, I haven't lived either. Nor do I hope to. Those gesticulations are unmistakably a mock of a disabled person. I feel ridiculous having to explain it to you, Raggs. Did IQ’s just drop off the planet?

Cant he be jailed (for something...ANYTHING) before he gets the chance to ruin not only America, but everywhere else.

Waiting for him to step into the most powerful job in the world is like waiting for Armageddon.

He is beyond horrible, like a joke, but it's not a joke, its REAL....

Storm in a teacup

Syl wrote:Cant he be jailed (for something...ANYTHING) before he gets the chance to ruin not only America, but everywhere else.

Waiting for him to  step into the most powerful job in the world is like waiting for Armageddon.

He is beyond horrible, like a joke, but it's not a joke, its REAL....

I have a very plausible expectation that we are in for a real ride in the next four years.  He will provide the entertainment without our having to look in remote corners for esoteric laws to hang him on.

Think of the possibilities: conflicts of interest; duplicity between campaign promises and resulting policies; constant lying; thin skin; bullying the wrong person; picking fights for no reason other than perceived animosity; perceived slights from foreign dignitaries; making outlandish claims; making outlandish claims that insult foreign potentates; making ill-advised economic decisions; having no foreign policy; having no economic policy; lapse in regulation/enforcement leading to a coal mining or oil rig disaster; hurricane Katrina all over again; another war in the middle east...my how they sneak up on you, or another Great Depression. The pussy-grabber is ill-prepared for any one of them, not to mention the ones he will create himself. He has no idea what he is doing.

Disasters can occur in any of a president's responsibilities.  Trump is setting himself up for some disasters already, never mind those that will come along of their own accord.  Add to that the combustible nature of his personality when he responds to any adversity...well, say I've got a lighted match in one hand, and a keg of black powder in the other...what are the probabilities of something happening?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  This is going to be a fun ride.

HoratioTarr wrote:Storm in a teacup

I don't think it is....She has highlighted what a low and nasty man the next president and potential roll model to millions of citizens of the US actually is, she is pointing out that it's not acceptable to make fun of anyone just because you are more powerful and in a position to do so...she is pointing out that disabilities are not there for anyone to have a good giggle over.

Now you may say that people in a modern liberated country already know this and don't need it to be pointed out.....

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Cant he be jailed (for something...ANYTHING) before he gets the chance to ruin not only America, but everywhere else.

Waiting for him to  step into the most powerful job in the world is like waiting for Armageddon.

He is beyond horrible, like a joke, but it's not a joke, its REAL....

I have a very plausible expectation that we are in for a real ride in the next four years.  He will provide the entertainment without our having to look in remote corners for esoteric laws to hang him on.

Think of the possibilities: conflicts of interest; duplicity between campaign promises and resulting policies; constant lying; thin skin; bullying the wrong person; picking fights for no reason other than perceived animosity; perceived slights from foreign dignitaries; making outlandish claims; making outlandish claims that insult foreign potentates; making ill-advised economic decisions; having no foreign policy; having no economic policy; lapse in regulation/enforcement leading to a coal mining or oil rig disaster; hurricane Katrina all over again; another war in the middle east...my how they sneak up on you, or another Great Depression.  The pussy-grabber is ill-prepared for any one of them, not to mention the ones he will create himself.  He has no idea what he is doing.

Disasters can occur in any of a president's responsibilities.  Trump is setting himself up for some disasters already, never mind those that will come along of their own accord.  Add to that the combustible nature of his personality when he responds to any adversity...well, say I've got a lighted match in one hand, and a keg of black powder in the other...what are the probabilities of something happening?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  This is going to be a fun ride.

It might be fun if he was a character on Spitting image or the Muppet show....

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have a very plausible expectation that we are in for a real ride in the next four years.  He will provide the entertainment without our having to look in remote corners for esoteric laws to hang him on.

Think of the possibilities: conflicts of interest; duplicity between campaign promises and resulting policies; constant lying; thin skin; bullying the wrong person; picking fights for no reason other than perceived animosity; perceived slights from foreign dignitaries; making outlandish claims; making outlandish claims that insult foreign potentates; making ill-advised economic decisions; having no foreign policy; having no economic policy; lapse in regulation/enforcement leading to a coal mining or oil rig disaster; hurricane Katrina all over again; another war in the middle east...my how they sneak up on you, or another Great Depression.  The pussy-grabber is ill-prepared for any one of them, not to mention the ones he will create himself.  He has no idea what he is doing.

Disasters can occur in any of a president's responsibilities.  Trump is setting himself up for some disasters already, never mind those that will come along of their own accord.  Add to that the combustible nature of his personality when he responds to any adversity...well, say I've got a lighted match in one hand, and a keg of black powder in the other...what are the probabilities of something happening?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  This is going to be a fun ride.

It might be fun if he was a character on Spitting image or the Muppet show....

More likely, Freddy Krueger...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Really? You haven't lived.

Well, I haven't lived either.  Nor do I hope to.  Those gesticulations are unmistakably a mock of a disabled person.  I feel ridiculous having to explain it to you, Raggs.  Did IQ’s just drop off the planet?

It's a good job I don't have a low IQ, otherwise I could accuse you of mocking those with an intellectual disability.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, I haven't lived either.  Nor do I hope to.  Those gesticulations are unmistakably a mock of a disabled person.  I feel ridiculous having to explain it to you, Raggs.  Did IQ’s just drop off the planet?

It's a good job I don't have a low IQ, otherwise I could accuse you of mocking those with an intellectual disability.

I've told you over and over, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY!

We all come with the same equipment. It all works the same way. Conservatives simply choose not to exercise those muscles, and as a consequence their intelligence atrophies. There's a difference between 'mocking those with a...disability' and shaking your head over blatant laziness.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a good job I don't have a low IQ, otherwise I could accuse you of mocking those with an intellectual disability.

I've told you over and over, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY!

We all come with the same equipment.  It all works the same way.  Conservatives simply choose not to exercise those muscles, and as a consequence their intelligence atrophies.  There's a difference between 'mocking those with a...disability' and shaking your head over blatant laziness.

No, you haven't told me that. A low IQ can be called an intellectual disability - it's nothing to do with conservatives. Basically, you were mocking me for disagreeing with you and implying that I have some kind of intellectual disability.

http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition#.WHUgFbnLIpU

JSM wrote:I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative. —John Stuart Mill

Intelligence Quotient, as the name implies, is a performance rating, not some congenital part of the physical body.  Thus it is the degree of effort that you put into it, not a variance as an accident of birth.

Conservatives, as the name implies, are loath to change anything.  Thus they put very little thought or effort into making society or politics better, or indeed, into any problem-solving at all.  As a result, their abilities atrophy and they are reduced to thinking merely in catch-phrases and jingles.

Analyze any conservative for the content of his ideas, and you will find little or no depth.

Original Quill wrote:

JSM wrote:I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative. —John Stuart Mill

Intelligence Quotient, as the name implies, is a performance rating, not some congenital part.  Thus it is the degree of effort that you put into it, not a variance as an accident of birth.

Conservatives, as the name implies, are loath to change anything.  Thus they put very little thought or effort into making society or politics better, or indeed, into any problem-solving at all.  As a result, their abilities atrophy and they are reduced to thinking merely in catch-phrases and jingles.

Analyze any conservative for the content of his ideas, and you will find little or no depth.

You implied that I have some kind of intellectual disability merely because I interpreted Trumps movements a different way to you. For you to attempt to mock the intellectually disabled on a thread where you're outraged because you think Trump mocked a disabled person is quite ironic - don't you think?

Intellectual functioning—also called intelligence—refers to general mental capacity, such as learning, reasoning, problem solving, and so on.

One way to measure intellectual functioning is an IQ test. Generally, an IQ test score of around 70 or as high as 75 indicates a limitation in intellectual functioning.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Intelligence Quotient, as the name implies, is a performance rating, not some congenital part.  Thus it is the degree of effort that you put into it, not a variance as an accident of birth.

Conservatives, as the name implies, are loath to change anything.  Thus they put very little thought or effort into making society or politics better, or indeed, into any problem-solving at all.  As a result, their abilities atrophy and they are reduced to thinking merely in catch-phrases and jingles.

Analyze any conservative for the content of his ideas, and you will find little or no depth.

You implied that I had some kind of intellectual disability merely because I interpreted Trumps movements a different way to you. For you to mock the intellectually disabled on a thread where you're outraged because you think Trump mocked a disabled person is quite ironic - don't you think?

Intellectual functioning—also called intelligence—refers to general mental capacity, such as learning, reasoning, problem solving, and so on.

One way to measure intellectual functioning is an IQ test. Generally, an IQ test score of around 70 or as high as 75 indicates a limitation in intellectual functioning.

Read your own quoted passage: intelligence is "general mental capacity, such as learning, reasoning, problem solving..." Those are performance criteria, not the size or shape of the cranium. A "limitation in intellectual function" can be for any reason, including lack of use.

A disability is literally something unable to be done. One who does not get proper exercise is not disabled, but lazy. Conservatives, because they seek no change, generally are not taxed in the use of their mind. Occasionally a bright conservative comes along, such as Fredrich Hayak, who demonstrates he has used his mind quite a bit. But then he turns around and writes an essay titled, Why I'm Not a Conservative. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

Have you ever read it? Do you think he's telling you something?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You implied that I had some kind of intellectual disability merely because I interpreted Trumps movements a different way to you. For you to mock the intellectually disabled on a thread where you're outraged because you think Trump mocked a disabled person is quite ironic - don't you think?

Read your own quoted passage: intelligence is "general mental capacity, such as learning, reasoning, problem solving..."  Those are performance criteria, not the size or shape of the cranium.  A "limitation in intellectual function" can be for any reason, including lack of use.

A disability is literally something unable to be done.  One who does not get proper exercise is not disabled, but lazy.  Conservatives, because they seek no change, generally are not taxed in the use of their mind.  Occasionally a bright conservative comes along, such as Fredrich Hayak, who demonstrates he has used his mind quite a bit.  But then he turns around and writes an essay titled, Why I'm Not a Conservative.  https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

Have you ever read it?  Do you think he's telling you something?

Would you prefer to call it "mental retardation"? You're clutching at straws because you got caught out.

If you merely meant "conservative", why would interpreting arm movements differently mean that I'm conservative? In any case, implying that conservative people are mentally retarded isn't really on, is it?

Original Quill wrote:

JSM wrote:I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative. —John Stuart Mill

Intelligence Quotient, as the name implies, is a performance rating, not some congenital part of the physical body.  Thus it is the degree of effort that you put into it, not a variance as an accident of birth.

Conservatives, as the name implies, are loath to change anything.  Thus they put very little thought or effort into making society or politics better, or indeed, into any problem-solving at all.  As a result, their abilities atrophy and they are reduced to thinking merely in catch-phrases and jingles.

Analyze any conservative for the content of his ideas, and you will find little or no depth.

a fair bit is just what you are born with too

Here an IQ under 80 is a mild disability and the child will get extra help at school (and school get extra funds) under 60 and you can claim a disability pension for life

BUT Some conservatives Choose to be dumb... as Raggs points out

Raggamuffin wrote:Would you prefer to call it "mental retardation"? You're clutching at straws because you got caught out.

If you merely meant "conservative", why would interpreting arm movements differently mean that I'm conservative? In any case, implying that conservative people are mentally retarded isn't really on, is it?

Straws?  Caught out?  My, aren't we dramatic today...living theater, eh?

As tempted as I am to call conservatives mentally retarded, I don't think that quite works.

WebMD wrote:What is intellectual disability?

Someone with intellectual disability has limitations in two areas. These areas are:

Intellectual functioning. Also known as IQ, this refers to a person’s ability to learn, reason, make decisions, and solve problems.
Adaptive behaviors. These are skills necessary for day-to-day life, such as being able to communicate effectively, interact with others, and take care of oneself.

No, the point I'm making is that the reason why conservatives lack intellectual acuity is lack of practice.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but they are lazy.

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Would you say that about people not leaving him alone with their sons if he was a homosexual...!?


Thought not...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Would you say that about people not leaving him alone with their sons if he was a homosexual...!?

Thought not...!

How would you feel about anyone who said this?

The pussy-grabber wrote:I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything"

Son or daughter...does it matter?

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Would you say that about people not leaving him alone with their sons if he was a homosexual...!?


Thought not...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Would you say that about people not leaving him alone with their sons if he was a homosexual...!?

Thought not...!

Without hesitation.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Would you say that about people not leaving him alone with their sons if he was a homosexual...!?


Thought not...!

If there was video of him openly stating he sexually assaults them and gets away with it

the dude said he if he thinks they're pretty he just grabs them by the pussy, would you let your daughter near a man that said he is going to assault her?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Would you say that about people not leaving him alone with their sons if he was a homosexual...!?


Thought not...!

Aside from the sexual assault accusation this is also a man who said he might date his daughter if they weren't related. He is a bit of a perv. If he said the same of his sons then sure, people would be rightly concerned to leave him with their sons too.

THREAD ON TOPIC AND NO ABUSE UNTIL THIS POST



face:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Agreed, it is quite telling of some.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It amazes me how blind Trump supporters are to the fact that he's simply a bad person. They'd never leave him alone with their daughters, but they'll make him president.

Would you say that about people not leaving him alone with their sons if he was a homosexual...!?


Thought not...!

If he was gay and had talked about grabbing men by the dick or that he'd date his son, of course I would say the same thing.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Would you prefer to call it "mental retardation"? You're clutching at straws because you got caught out.

If you merely meant "conservative", why would interpreting arm movements differently mean that I'm conservative? In any case, implying that conservative people are mentally retarded isn't really on, is it?

Straws?  Caught out?  My, aren't we dramatic today...living theater, eh?

As tempted as I am to call conservatives mentally retarded, I don't think that quite works.

WebMD wrote:What is intellectual disability?

Someone with intellectual disability has limitations in two areas. These areas are:

Intellectual functioning. Also known as IQ, this refers to a person’s ability to learn, reason, make decisions, and solve problems.
Adaptive behaviors. These are skills necessary for day-to-day life, such as being able to communicate effectively, interact with others, and take care of oneself.

No, the point I'm making is that the reason why conservatives lack intellectual acuity is lack of practice.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but they are lazy.

You'll notice that it says a person's ability, not a person's willingness. You're clutching at even more straws Quill.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Dropping in to slag off other posters Wolfman?

No surprise there.

Eilzel wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Agreed, it is quite telling of some.

(RETALIATION POST
It's quite telling that you're encouraging Wolfman in his goading and bitching ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Agreed, it is quite telling of some.

It's quite telling that you're encouraging Wolfman in his goading and bitching ...

It isn't bitching in this case. It is noticeable that people who generally align with conservative politics would seem to overlook blatant mocking of a disabled person. While those who tend to oppose all kinds of prejudice call it out for what it is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Straws?  Caught out?  My, aren't we dramatic today...living theater, eh?

As tempted as I am to call conservatives mentally retarded, I don't think that quite works.



No, the point I'm making is that the reason why conservatives lack intellectual acuity is lack of practice.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but they are lazy.

You'll notice that it says a person's ability, not a person's willingness. You're clutching at even more straws Quill.

Semantics.  Face it, I'm right and it's making you squirrelly.  Point to something...anything that you call 'IQ'.  You can't.  It's secondary...all derivative of performance.

As far as 'willingness', do you have a theory that laziness is willful?  Because I sure wouldn't subscribe to that.  I think laziness is related to selfishness...and lo, what do we say about conservatives?  Isn't Smithsonian economics based upon selfishness and greed?  

I think if you reach back, it has more to do with upbringing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Dropping in to slag off other posters Wolfman?

No surprise there.

EXCUUUUUSE ME? "Slag off"? I thought he went out of his way to be polite: "esteemed", "kind-hearted", "fellows"...how genteel would you require?

BTW...he's making a valid point, you know.