It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SNL writer- 'Barron will be this country's first homeschool shooter'

page: 11
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

If more people actually owned what their ideology states, then maybe there'd be less crap being thrown about.


Except liberal ideology doesn't say "make fun of kids"

And conservative ideology doesn't say "let's be racist"




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

If more people actually owned what their ideology states, then maybe there'd be less crap being thrown about.


Where does it state in Liberal ideology that people must attack the children of political opponents?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingMonkeyInSpace
Love this kind of humor, if you can't make fun of something/someone go join ISIS.


So you also dream of sex with Rosie O'Donnell also I presume? Now that is funny....got your Harpoon?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: edsinger

originally posted by: FlyingMonkeyInSpace
Love this kind of humor, if you can't make fun of something/someone go join ISIS.


So you also dream of sex with Rosie O'Donnell also I presume? Now that is funny....got your Harpoon?


You misspelled strap-on.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: edsinger

originally posted by: FlyingMonkeyInSpace
Love this kind of humor, if you can't make fun of something/someone go join ISIS.


So you also dream of sex with Rosie O'Donnell also I presume? Now that is funny....got your Harpoon?


That's a mean, spiteful and hateful thing to say. You must be a conservative.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Remember how publicly castigated the Republican staffer was for simply saying she thought one of Obama's daughters was maybe a little disrespectful during a public function?

She asked them to maybe show some class during a turkey pardoning.

She disapproved of their dress and thought they looked disinterested a little too openly (made faces).



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Remember how publicly castigated the Republican staffer was for simply saying she thought one of Obama's daughters was maybe a little disrespectful during a public function?

She asked them to maybe show some class during a turkey pardoning.

She disapproved of their dress and thought they looked disinterested a little too openly (made faces).


For the record, the SNL writer is being castigated.

For the record, there were plenty of people who defended that Republican staffer too. More than are defending this goofy SNL person.
edit on 21-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



There are no liberals denouncing it... it's all "I don't agree with it, however..." followed by a bunch of deflections and unrelated issues.


So your problem is that that they are not denouncing it the way you want them to, but in reality they are denouncing by saying they don't agree with it.



We know what that means - it's a dog whistle for all liberals to know that it's ok to attack children if it furthers a political agenda.


No. That's your partisan interpretation.



Wait, are you saying that using the concept of 'dog whistling' to infer real motivation is partisan?
Well, well.


No, what I am saying is that you are making crap up because of your inherit need to be as partisan as possible. You call it a dog whistle that inspires real motivation, yet have no proof or reason to infer such a thing.


Hmm... So one must have proof to claim a 'dog whistle' then?
Interesting. How times change.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

If more people actually owned what their ideology states, then maybe there'd be less crap being thrown about.


Where does it state in Liberal ideology that people must attack the children of political opponents?


We can see it clearly with all the liberal dog whistles in this thread. I really don't understand why you think it ok to attack children.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



There are no liberals denouncing it... it's all "I don't agree with it, however..." followed by a bunch of deflections and unrelated issues.


So your problem is that that they are not denouncing it the way you want them to, but in reality they are denouncing by saying they don't agree with it.



We know what that means - it's a dog whistle for all liberals to know that it's ok to attack children if it furthers a political agenda.


No. That's your partisan interpretation.



Wait, are you saying that using the concept of 'dog whistling' to infer real motivation is partisan?
Well, well.


No, what I am saying is that you are making crap up because of your inherit need to be as partisan as possible. You call it a dog whistle that inspires real motivation, yet have no proof or reason to infer such a thing.


Hmm... So one must have proof to claim a 'dog whistle' then?
Interesting. How times change.


You made a claim. I figured you could back it up.

Guess you were making crap-up to satisfy your partisan jollies.



We can see it clearly with all the liberal dog whistles in this thread. I really don't understand why you think it ok to attack children.


I never said it was ok. In fact, I said it was out of line. There you go making # up again.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

If more people actually owned what their ideology states, then maybe there'd be less crap being thrown about.


Where does it state in Liberal ideology that people must attack the children of political opponents?


We can see it clearly with all the liberal dog whistles in this thread. I really don't understand why you think it ok to attack children.


I called Rosie out when she made the defamatory statement about Barron having autism.

I can't speak for anyone except myself, but I don't think it's okay to attack children.

In fact, one of my biggest issues with Pizza-gate was that people were spreading pictures of innocent children all over the internet, sometimes with their legal names, and associating them with unproven allegations of abuse.

The only point I have made in this thread is that, while the joke was in poor taste (and I agree it would have been better had it never been made), I highly doubt the joke was intended as a personal attack on Barron, but rather was a crack about "growing up trapped with Trump."

That is how I interpreted the joke. How one interprets a joke (and whether one laughs at it) is determined by subconscious cues, often for unclear reasons. Others have rightly pointed out that Barron might not interpret it that way, and for that reason I agree the joke was in poor taste.

But no, attacking kids is not a liberal thing. Any more than it's a conservative thing. Remember all the jokes about young Chelsea being ugly? Those WERE direct attacks on Chelsea. But I would never suggest that attacking kids is part of conservative ideology.

Quick frankly, it's a stupid assertion.
edit on 21-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

If I remember correctly, it was Rush Limbaugh that called Chelsea Clinton the "white house dog" when she was just 11 or so.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Greggers

If I remember correctly, it was Rush Limbaugh that called Chelsea Clinton the "white house dog" when she was just 11 or so.


I certainly hope all the conservatives outraged over this SNL writer called Rush out back then.

If they're too young to recall it, I hope their first instinct would be to call him out now that they've been made aware.

I also hope this illustrates the problems in pretending this is a liberal or conservative issue, or that either party should "own it."



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I do not condone going after children and I am not partisan about it.

The problem I see is a lot of people are partisan about it. It is a fact that Obamas kids have been attacked far more than this, but most of the posters here screaming bloody murder about it couldn't be bothered to give a sh!t back then.

Those type of hypocrites I find just as disgusting as the ones hurling insults. Maybe even more so.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Too Bad SNL has been irrelevant for the past fourty years after Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, John Belushi, Gilda Radnor, Jane Curtain, etc. all left by the late 70's.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



There are no liberals denouncing it... it's all "I don't agree with it, however..." followed by a bunch of deflections and unrelated issues.


So your problem is that that they are not denouncing it the way you want them to, but in reality they are denouncing by saying they don't agree with it.



We know what that means - it's a dog whistle for all liberals to know that it's ok to attack children if it furthers a political agenda.


No. That's your partisan interpretation.



Wait, are you saying that using the concept of 'dog whistling' to infer real motivation is partisan?
Well, well.


No, what I am saying is that you are making crap up because of your inherit need to be as partisan as possible. You call it a dog whistle that inspires real motivation, yet have no proof or reason to infer such a thing.


Hmm... So one must have proof to claim a 'dog whistle' then?
Interesting. How times change.


You made a claim. I figured you could back it up.

Guess you were making crap-up to satisfy your partisan jollies.



We can see it clearly with all the liberal dog whistles in this thread. I really don't understand why you think it ok to attack children.


I never said it was ok. In fact, I said it was out of line. There you go making # up again.


Liberals have proven time and time again that no proof is needed to claim a dog whistle to their required angst. I therefore need no proof either, unless somehow non liberals have to play by different rules?
No, I heard your dog whistle, and I think you are truly nasty for encouraging the needless attack on a child.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingMonkeyInSpace
a reply to: ujustneverknow

Oh you're against Freedom of Speech, sorry to hear that.

GodBless


Uh, no... you're against freedom of speech, and every other libtard is too! The only free speech you believe in is the speech that falls in line with your progressive ideas.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

Uh, no... you're against freedom of speech, and every other libtard is too!



Appending the word 'tard' to the end of a word, intending it as an insult, is interpreted by many (both conservatives and liberals) to be a personal slight against children who suffer from mental retardation.

I personally just think it's juvenile, but to throw that type of name around means, at the very least, you don't care what the parents of those children think.

This isn't the sort of thing I get in a twist about, but in a thread like this one--where so many have expressed concern for children--it's worth pointing out.
edit on 21-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Someone who has a serious mental challenge is someone who deserves respect and won't be called a tard by me, but someone who doesn't have a mental challenge but acts like he/she does will be called a 'tard'



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join