MovieChat Forums > BreakbeatSavant > Replies
BreakbeatSavant's Replies
Stop putting words in my mouth when I said none of those things. You're obviously having to straw man me for things I never said because you know how pathetic you're acting.
I'm commenting on your specific behavior, calling anyone who compliments this guy's looks as 'shallow' even going so far as to wrongly call Frogarama a 'moron' for praising his looks. No, that's just you acting like a jealous and petulant child mad at the world because you think yourself so morally superior.
But guess what? No one was commenting on his criminal past or whether they'd date him. This thread is specifically about his looks. Yet you take compliments of his looks personally. Like what normal person does that? You're seriously struggling with mental health issues of your own to take compliments of someone else's physical beauty personally. If you want to live up to your constant virtue signaling you owe everyone on this thread you've unfairly insulted an apology. But I suspect you won't because you come across like one of those pseudo-virtuous holier-than-thou hypocrites.
Maybe it's your incessant virtue signaling, blatant hypocrisy, and perpetual woe-is-me victimhood vibe that turns off the ladies.
The fact that he's apparently better looking than you are has you really triggered and lashing out at anyone that compliments his looks. You're acting like a petty and petulant child. You seriously need to get a grip and grow up.
If you're not getting the attention of the ladies that you think you deserve, then it's something about you. Stop trying to blame the world for your own shortcomings.
Nice R3 reference, it's a well made point.
Kushner though comes from a billionaire family in his own right who were hardcore lifelong Democrats. It was Ivanka who agreed to convert to Orthodox Judaism upon marriage. In case you're not familiar, this is no small feat. It ain't easy to become a Jew. But family is family and he did choose to marry a Trump, presumably the monetary angle of combined fortunes was considered and a significant reason why both families gave their blessing so long as Ivanka agreed to convert.
Plus, Trump hadn't gone full GOP birther until after their marriage.
Tats can be removed with laser treatments these days. Sure it's a PITA, but still, it's a valid strategy for enjoying ink when you're young while avoiding looking all gnarly and inked out when you grow old.
lolz.
Or maybe you're just not as hot as you think you are.
Wow oh wow!
The extreme right has really worked their wonders on you.
That the President of the United States should be held to higher standards by virtue of the office (much less compared to a small town mayor of a half million population in 1994) isn't even controversial except to the most wack-a-doodle partisan. I'm sorry to see you fall into this latter category.
To be clear, it's pity and sadness I feel as witness to your extreme right sloped brainwashing, not spite.
So you understand Forbes refers to Trump as the white Marion Barry right? The equivocation is legit.
[url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/01/27/trump-is-the-white-marion-barry/#745c55cf4bd2[/url]
So if you're calling democratic voters pathetic because DC voters re-elected Barry as city mayor 25 years ago, what exactly does that say about national republicans today who are two years removed from electing the white Marion Barry as President of the United States?
I'd call that far more damning. The imbecility of 66 million Republican Trump voters today dwarves the 63K DC democratic voters that voted in Barry 25 years ago by a factor of 1000.
You've also got this problem of Texas Republicans electing and re-electing someone as pervasively ignorant as conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer Louis Gohmert to congress who has literally tried to argue gun control will lead to beastiality along with many MANY other very stupid and crazy things:
[url]http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/rep-louis-gohmert-compares-gun-control-bestiality-audio[/url]
So if you want to get into why Marion Barry was re-elected 25 years ago as DC mayor after serving his time and repaying his debt to society, you've got far more explaining to do to justify why republicans are still sending a Rep as stupid as Gohmert to congress for the last 15 years while nominating the compulsive liar AKA "white Marion Barry" to represent your party over other republican candidates who had far greater integrity.
Marion Barry was never president so your argument is pretty silly. We should have higher standards for who we elect to the presidency.
Except neither "Fast and Furious" nor Benghazi were scandals that involved the president himself, so I'm honestly not sure what that has to do with these facts Woodward revealed about the president.
Trump's propensity to lie is sui generis in the annals of American presidential history. This isn't controversial among historians. His biggest enablers are Republicans in congress too craven to criticize his commonplace dishonesty.
It sounds like you have a secret gay obsession with him that you'd call him "Peter Buttplug". Otherwise, how were you so clued into his facial features that you would accuse him of using a buttplug? And who else but a gay guy would be so familiar with such a gay toy?
Why not just come out of the closet and start living your life as an open gay man rather than be scornful of gays that refuse to keep their orientation a secret any longer? You sound really envious.
I'm a HUGE fan of this genre; dystopian sci-fi, cyberpunk, steampunk, biopunk. I love it!
My opinion is TheAdlerian seems to have some prudish hangups about sex. The simple solution is to find a safe space. :)
I wouldn't think that of a 19 year old boy either. But I remember my sheer revulsion when encountering the feminists I did my freshman year at the liberal arts college I attended who would show off legs with such thick and bushy hair that you couldn't even see any skin.
They might have been hot otherwise. Instead they were revolting and I couldn't see myself hitting that under any circumstances.
I'm only "whining" about it because you keep whining about it. You keep trying to run away from your very own initial words and it's really baffling as to why. You apparently have a really hard time owning up to what you said that turned out to be misleading. But you can't deny what you did say. I already explained that you provided additional clarity so I now have a different understanding of what you meant, but you can't let it go.
But when the focus of your initial words are about youth and ambition "bothering" you, I'm going to take your words at face value. Saying it's wrong for me to assume you meant what you said is just you being disingenuous.
Your attempt to cast Buttigieg with Obama is also just silly when we don't know what Buttigieg would do once in office. You're just making superficial assumptions he'd fold like a lawn chair much like Obama did. You apparently forgot that Obama WAS the hope and change candidate in the 2008 Democratic primaries. He was given a mandate to make big changes his first two years and he fundamentally underplayed his hand. We're worse off because of it. You're acting like there were more progressive options in the 2008 primary that could have delivered when there were not.
Nobody voted for Obama in the 2008 primaries because of 'electability'. That would have been Hillary. The conventional wisdom on Obama was he was too inexperienced and America would never elect a black president. So your insistence that Obama represented the most 'electable' candidate like Buttigieg or Beto is just an utterly shambolic broken analogy to begin with.
It was perfectly logical for me to assume you were being judgemental and superficial when you said this:
"i think he is too young, and people who presume to run for President too young bother me - it is way too ambitious. Same with Beto O'Rourke"
Now that you've provided additional clarity on what you meant it would be wrong for me to continue thinking this. But absent additional information my initial impression was perfectly logical because without further information that's exactly what your initial words belied.
I agree Teddy had more experience at 42, but that didn't appear to be the focus of your initial criticism. It was age and ambition, and that he couldn't possibly know enough history at 37. I found the critique on ambition especially puzzling seeing as how uninhibited ambition is a necessary prerequisite for wanting the job. Being a Rhodes Scholar implies high intelligence and high ambition. That's all it implies. It obviously says nothing as to whether the person's ideas have cachet or whether they'd make a good president. Bobby Jindal was a Rhodes Scholar. That doesn't mean Bobby Jindal should be anywhere close to the presidency. David Vitter was a Rhodes Scholar. That doesn't mean former Senator Diaper from Louisiana should be in the White House.
I sympathize with your disdain for what you call the 'beauty contest'. But I also acknowledge since the dawn of our species that's always been a dimension to how we choose our leaders, which is why I value electability as an asset and reason to run. Again, I haven't seen enough of Pete to know if he meets that electability quotient, but he does appear highly competent in everything he's set his mind to. If it were between Pete and Beto I'd consider Pete the far superior candidate. But I also recognize Beto might be most electable (even if he's the least qualified) because like you said, look at who's in the White House now. If it shakes out that way I'll vote for him if it means getting Trump out.
I made assumptions because the way you framed your original criticism centered not on ideas or competence, but instead on youth and ambition as what fundamentally bothered you. It just sounded superficial and judgemental to me when you consider some of our youngest presidents have been among the best. Teddy was the youngest when he took office at 42. That would be only 3 years older than Pete should he take office in 2021. He's a Rhodes Scholar, so of course he's going to be highly ambitious.
Regardless, I share your enthusiasm for Warren and Sanders and their ideas. I just strongly disagree that it's "wasting people's time to seek to get your face out there" otherwise. Great ideas don't mean much without great messengers to sell those ideas to the American people. This is not to say Warren or Sanders are imperfect messengers or that Pete would be a better one. I have no real idea at this early stage. Where I disagree with your take is that I see value in a candidate's electability even if policy ideas are adopted from other candidates. My overarching concern is to see a Dem in the White House to get the cancer we have there right now out.
Then you haven't been paying attention. All the declared Dem 2020 candidates do is talk policy on the trail. It's the congressional Dems that talk Trump because they're the opposition party and they're supposed to. This is not unusual.
Great points. Without the ability to shave there's no reason she wouldn't have had thick hairy legs either. She would have looked like some feminists I recall from college.
But who would watch if she had crooked teeth and hairy pits/legs? No one.
"i think he is too young, and people who presume to run for President too young bother me - it is way too ambitious. Same with Beto O'Rourke"
I think you're being far too judgemental thinking this.
Have you ever considered their big picture strategy might be to raise their national profile and name recognition not because they think they've got a real shot this time around, but as a launchpad for a future run?
Especially for Buttigieg, it's not a bad strategy. He's getting great pub. As a small town mayor no one would have ever heard of him otherwise. America may or may not be ready for their first gay president in 2020. But there's something to be said for getting the public accustomed to the idea so it's not a detractor or novelty whenever he gets his next shot, be it '24 or '28. His candidacy can be a catalyst for social progress.
So I assume you must be gay to be so clued in to homosexual minutia. What are the telltale signs of his facial features that tip you off to his sexual orientation?
2017-2018 Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and presidency. Just like they did from 2001-2006. Did they actually try to pass any laws to outlaw abortion? Nope, they did not. It's because they don't actually care, they just pretend to care in order to get the vote of the religious right. But when in office they do nothing.
How many times do you need to get duped before you begin to realize that elected Republicans don't actually care about the issue of abortion?