WSS

their political bent.

So, I simply generalize on the trend, which is not an exact science, but it makes my points.

And, Heck never upset me at all. But your childish quibbling over some matters just seems very Heckish.

Go back and look at how democrats voted in block, on the disaster Obamaocare, mostly without ever

having read the stupid boondoggle.

That's a trend you see often. And yes, you can see it in Reps, too.

@calfoxwc said:

I don't presume that because someone is liberal on one thing that they are some caricature of Che Guevera. You don't seem to be able to do that.

You won't admit the difference out of politics. No big deal.

You surely are Heck's "other brother Daryll"

@logicisforsquares said:

Exactly what I was thinking reading that post

@calfoxwc said:

You can pretty much justify any dipshit behavior you exhibit. Walt is definitely off with his blanket statements but you are on pretty unsteady footing when it comes to calling anyone else out on doing the exact same stuff you do.

Democrat politicians, are very much on the exact same progressive page, and you know it.

Marxists, liberals, progressives are trending being on the same page. It's part of the definition as such.

Now, atheists? There is no political trending with atheists. That's ignorant.

And I don't believe I've ever referred to Muslims as a group. There are Muslims, and then there

are many terrorist/sharia law extremists. But as an entitity - the Muslim religion has been badly

hijacked by the latter, and that draws negativism towards the religion. Probably wouldn't be so,

except for how the Koran reads on the surface.

Your jab is baseless. I've never said anything of the sort with atheists or Muslimis. What, I'm not posting enough recently? @@

(very busy)

@calfoxwc said:

So basically, nonsensical bullshit is o.k. so long as you are the one doing it?

************************************************************

the master of bs whines wrongly.

I use blanket statements about liberals, marxists, progressives, etc, because

by virtue of the definition, it's easier than qualifying it every time, and still fairly

valid.

There is no all-inclusive definition of policemen that one can negatively base that generalziation on.

@calfoxwc said:

The master of blanket statements disagrees when someone else makes a blanket statement haha.

Just a couple of rotten apples on the ground, here and there.

The big apple tree is fine. Come on, man.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

That doesn't show anything except what you want it to show.

It shows the cops killing a guy. What else do you fucking need? He clearly wasnt a threat and they bothered him. Thats why that cop will soon be fired and hopefully put in jail.

@walterwhite said:

That doesn't show anything except what you want it to show.