Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The wife of the Treasury secretary on Monday night took a page from President Trump's social media playbook for punching down. Louise Linton, the labels-loving wife of Steven Mnuchin, replied condescendingly to an Instagram poster about her lifestyle and belittled the woman, Jenni Miller, a mother of three from Portland, Ore., for having less money than she does. The brouhaha began when Linton posted a photograph of herself disembarking a military jet emblazoned with official government markings. She had joined her husband on a quick trip to Kentucky with the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. "Great #daytrip to #Kentucky!" Linton, 36, wrote under the photograph. She then added hashtags for various pieces of her expensive wardrobe, listing #rolandmouret, #hermesscarf, #tomford and #valentino. Ms. Miller, 45, wrote under the photograph, "Glad we could pay for your little getaway. #deplorable."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Instead of ignoring Miller, Linton -- whose account had been public -- replied with snark. (Linton changed her Instagram account to a private setting soon after the photograph was posted.)

"Aw! Did you think this was a personal trip?! Adorable!" she wrote. "Do you think the US govt paid for our honeymoon or personal travel?! Lololol. Have you given more to the economy than me and my husband? Either as an individual earner in taxes OR in self sacrifice to your country?"

Linton went on: "I'm pretty sure we paid more taxes toward our day 'trip' than you did. Pretty sure the amount we sacrifice per year is a lot more than you'd be willing to sacrifice if the choice was yours." After that, she included emojis of a curled bicep and a face blowing a kiss.

"You're adorably out of touch," she said, later adding, "your life looks cute" before concluding, "Go chill out and watch the new game of thrones. It's fab!"

Mnuchin is a wealthy businessman and a former executive at Goldman Sachs who worked on deals with Mr. Trump before Trump became president. Linton is an actress who posed with the diamonds she wore at their June wedding for a Town and Country magazine spread.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Stepping off a government plane, bragging about wealth, putting the little people in their place.

Meet your Kings and Queens.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-22 12:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

"Go chill out and watch the new game of thrones. It's fab!"

Nulli is married to Treasury sec?

Who knew??

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-22 12:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If you dish, you better be able to eat. Anyone forcing Ms. Miller to a) follow Linton's account or b) comment on it? No?

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-08-22 01:02 PM | Reply

If you dish, you better be able to eat....

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-08-22

Cake.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2017-08-22 01:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3 they flinging feces. open up Americans and taste what your elites are feeding you.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-22 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you dish, you better be able to eat. Anyone forcing Ms. Miller to a) follow Linton's account or b) comment on it? No?

#3 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2017-08-22 01:02 PM | FLAG:

How about not being an ostentatious, pretentious, condescending pig in the first place? No one is claiming she was forced to follow the account.

#6 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-22 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think the rich forget that they have their wealth because the American people let them. Ask Marie Antionette what happens when you forget you live at the pleasure of others...They can take it all back should they choose.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-22 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Louise you ignorant ----.

#8 | Posted by uncle_meat at 2017-08-22 05:24 PM | Reply

She looks like she has zero personality.

#9 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-22 05:45 PM | Reply


www.nbcnews.com

... Walter Shaub Jr., the former director of the of the Office of Government Ethics, called Linton, Mnuchin and even the president out for their behavior.

"Bad ethics tone from POTUS leads entitled appointee/freeloading spouse to ask not what they can do for country but what YOU can do for them," Shaub wrote.

Shaub later sent another tweet saying, "Hey @stevenmnuchin1 the government's not your playground. The little people your wife mocks are paying the bills with blood, sweat & tears."

Shaub continued tweeting about Linton and Mnuchin throughout Monday afternoon.

"@USTreasury will you be releasing your GC's written justification for allowing @stevenmnuchin1 to bring his spouse on a govt aircraft?" Shaub wrote. "U say she paid, but did u tell folks regs require her to pay same coach fare woman she mocked would pay for a crowded commercial flight?" ...

The actress has also left some in Washington D.C. scratching their head for attending congressional hearings with Mnuchin and other events that spouses typically don't attend, the Washington Post reported.

Mnuchin had flown to Louisville in an attempt to push Congress to overhaul the tax code, stressing that changes could help the middle class, according to the Post.

The Post explained that Treasury secretaries typically only fly on government planes for international trips and fly on domestic carriers when the travel within the United States.



#10 | Posted by lamplighter at 2017-08-22 05:48 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Jones gets a funny for #9.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-22 05:57 PM | Reply

The correct attitude when rich and dealing with detractors is to remind yourself they're unworthy of your time and move on rather than call attention to them and the possibility that you're wrong.

#12 | Posted by Tor at 2017-08-22 06:03 PM | Reply

I think the rich forget that they have their wealth because the American people let them. Ask Marie Antionette what happens when you forget you live at the pleasure of others...They can take it all back should they choose.

Marie Antionette was an entitled queen. But she wasn't like what a lot of envious liberals said at the time. When you liberals get jealous and envious, you get evil..

The phrase "Let them eat cake" is often attributed to Marie Antoinette, but there is no evidence she ever uttered it, and it is now generally regarded as a "journalistic cliché".[213] This phrase originally appeared in Book VI of the first part (finished in 1767, published in 1782) of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's putative autobiographical work, Les Confessions: "Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse à qui l'on disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit: Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" ("Finally I recalled the stopgap solution of a great princess who was told that the peasants had no bread, and who responded: 'Let them eat brioche'"). Apart from the fact that Rousseau ascribes these words to an unknown princess, vaguely referred to as a "great princess", the purported writing date precedes Marie Antoinette's arrival in France. Some[who?] think that he invented it altogether.[214]

en.wikipedia.org

Class warfare, the weapon of jealous and envious liberals..

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2017-08-22 06:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"The actress has also left some in Washington D.C. scratching their head for attending congressional hearings with Mnuchin and other events that spouses typically don't attend, the Washington Post reported."

I get it - she's attractive and he wants to show his mastery of gold diggers. In other words, he's god awfully unattractive but snagged him a trophy gold/power digger wife. (I'm sure he's worth much more than her - since she has been in nothing big and never been heard of...)

#14 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-08-22 06:07 PM | Reply

Wow, what an obnoxious, pretentious bi$ch.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-22 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sorry, honey, graceful you're not:

Linton and Mnuchin tied the knot on June 24 with an extravagant ceremony. She told Town And Country Magazine about the jewelry she wore, which included pearl-drop earrings, a diamond necklace, diamond earrings, a diamond ring, a small brooch with a pearl and a Martin Katz Deco bracelet.

"I love how easy pearls are to wear with anything and everything. Pearls are elegant and demure. They remind me of the femininity and grace of the '40s and '50s," Linton told the magazine. "They make me think of Grace Kelly and Tippi Hedren in Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder and The Birds. Those women were so chic."

heavy.com

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-22 06:27 PM | Reply

"When you liberals get jealous and envious, you get evil.."
#13 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Jealousy and evilness remind me of plebeian conservative complaining about us Coastal Elites.

Mnuchin produced Going In Style which I recently watched. It was pretty good.

#17 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-22 06:31 PM | Reply

"Class warfare, the weapon of jealous and envious liberals.."

Class warfare is already happening. The rich are winning.

#18 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-22 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What is it about "plutocracy" some folks just don't understand?

I guarangoddamnteeya the plutocrats understand the dynamics very well indeed.

#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-08-22 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's capitalism for you. Being poor, losing your job, getting exploited, it is seen as being, like, an act of nature. Like catching a disease or getting caught in a storm. No one and nothing can be blamed for these circumstances and the lot of the poor and the exploited is just to endure and overcome as best as they are able.

#20 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-22 07:24 PM | Reply

Or there is the old "blame the victim" approach, I suppose.

#21 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-22 07:28 PM | Reply


@#18 ... Class warfare is already happening. The rich are winning. ...

Our Country as already stratified into two population segments, the 1% and everyone else. I can see it on the various local programs that I watch on NYC TV stations. The 1%'ers are in a different world.

Problems seem to occur when those two worlds interact in a neutral space, such as Twitter or Instagram. The very differing viewpoints are less than compatible. Sparks ensue.

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-08-22 08:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Funny what happens when you make false insinuations and insult someone.

#23 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 08:07 PM | Reply

Hey, don't blame the people who voted for this trash.

They didn't want any of this to happen.

The blame falls squarely on people who didn't vote for it.

It's all their fault.

...Duh...

#24 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-08-22 08:55 PM | Reply

Class warfare, the weapon of jealous and envious liberals..

#13 | Posted by boaz

Class warfare, what plutocrats call it when the commoners fight back.

*plus their broke brainwashed conservative lapdogs.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-22 08:55 PM | Reply

If you blame them for their cluster**** -- that you caused BTW -- you will force them to vote for him again.

It will be all your fault when he gets another term, not theirs..

#26 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-08-22 09:00 PM | Reply

Linton's Capital Hills Housewife Tagline: I'm an arrogant, self-absorbed mannequin, decked out in designer clothes!

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-22 09:00 PM | Reply

Jennifer Miller is an opportunistic victim of class envy. She replied emotionally to a post by an elected official's wife. Not out of reason, logic, or a desire to draw attention to income disparity. She did it out of envy. A low information emotional voter spouting her ignorance. Now that she's been put in her place, not because of her lack of money, but because of her ignorance, she's deflecting like hell. She posted a link to a donate to a "Friend" of hers. Something she, surprisingly, had never actually done before. She cared SO much about this friend she waited 3 months to post, AFTER she was receiving negative feedback for showing her lack of information and a mass influx of attention in an effort to deflect and show she was a good person. Classic deflection. But did she learn her lesson? Oh no...she didn't. In an interview with CNN she continued to spout ignorance and speculation based on her own class envy stating "I'm glad they are reimbursing all of us, the government, the taxpayers for this trip that she used to advertise for brands that, I don't know, if her friends own them or what." This woman is a tool. She spouts off accusations and speculation with no facts...which is exactly why she was "put in her place" to begin with. This woman is no hero. And sadly is no better for the experience.

#28 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:23 PM | Reply

PS....if anyone on this website made wild speculations like this woman... HAHAHAH! Well. Never mind. :-) This is the life blood of drudge.

#29 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:25 PM | Reply


@#28 ... She replied emotionally to a post by an elected official's wife. ...

Who voted for Mr. Mnuchin?

#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-08-22 09:34 PM | Reply

She replied emotionally to a post by an elected official's wife.

#28 | POSTED BY GAVASTER A

What is it with you people.and the truth??

#31 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-08-22 09:34 PM | Reply

#30 - not one. Do you have a point?

#32 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:42 PM | Reply

#31 - why don't you read her interview with CNN and report back.

#33 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:43 PM | Reply

31 - so you don't have to go look for it...

"I was frustrated already by some stories I had just read about the Secret Service running out of overtime money because of the excesses of the administration's travel."
"And then I saw this woman who I didn't know who she was. I knew who the treasury secretary was, so I assumed it was his wife, getting off of a government plane for what I assumed was a government trip and basically advertising for all of these European, you know, high-end brands that your average person couldn't afford, especially anyone in Kentucky where they were visiting, one of the poorest states in our country," she said.

#34 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:45 PM | Reply

Jennifer Miller is an opportunistic victim of class envy. She replied emotionally to a post by an elected official's wife. Not out of reason, logic, or a desire to draw attention to income disparity. She did it out of envy. A low information emotional voter spouting her ignorance.

#28 | Posted by gavaster

Speaking of ignorance, the treasury secretary is not an elected official.

He's a slimy millionaire goldman sachs banker APPOINTED to his position because the people would never elect a fat cat like him or his golddigging wife.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-22 09:46 PM | Reply

He was voted in by senators selected by the state's population, no? Selected by Trump, voted by Senators sent by their state's having been voted on by their populations to represent them. So yes. He was elected.

#36 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:50 PM | Reply

#35 - Don't be so sure speak, you do know Trump is President right? He is a fat cat with a gold digging wife, no?

#37 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:51 PM | Reply

I see why you support her. Name calling, false accusations, lack of the basic knowledge of the facts, what I cam only assume is projection, etc... Two peas in a pod.

#38 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 09:53 PM | Reply

#35 - Don't be so sure speak, you do know Trump is President right? He is a fat cat with a gold digging wife, no?

#37 | Posted by gavaster

And the ability to charm masses of morons. Mnuchin doesn't have trump's gift.

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-22 09:57 PM | Reply

Don't worry, gang.

The guy who thinks the treasury secretary is "an elected official" is not only standing by that idiotic statement, he is here here to 'splain stuffs to the masses.

#40 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-08-22 09:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He was voted in by senators selected by the state's population, no?
#36 | Posted by gavaster

No.
APPROVED is different than ELECTED.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-22 09:58 PM | Reply

Well the very wealthy shouldn't fall for being called out, why , what's the point.

I'm sitting in my own house ,on my sixth gin in coke watching 2 and a 1/2 men in a puddle of my own urine waiting for my love to bring back some Taco Bell.

AND I'M STILL RICHER THAN MOST OF THE FOLKS ON THE PLANET.

#42 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-22 10:01 PM | Reply

Republicans claim 25 percent of the country is unemployed and another half can't earn enough to even reach income levels where they pay income taxes over the sales taxes.

Yet, the taxpayers pay them huge salaries and provide them with transportation and accommodation and security. The least they can do is not spit in the face of people who give money they don't have so spoiled classless clones can flaunt.

#43 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-22 10:03 PM | Reply

#41 - are you seriously trying to play semantics? Each senator cast a vote of approval. It's a confirmation "vote". I suppose Congress doesn't vote on legislation, rather they approve of it. Wouldn't you say?

Here's a NYT article for you. www.nytimes.com

#44 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 10:07 PM | Reply

The outfit she was wearing cost $16000. The reason I know this is because she hashtagged every item.

#45 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-08-22 10:11 PM | Reply

#40 - when you finally get those goalposts moved to "I meant he wasn't elected by an independent individual vote of the masses where they voted specifically for this man" let me know. Then we can actually agree.

#46 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 10:11 PM | Reply

Here's another little nugget for you.

Miller "she made a lot of assumptions about me and my husband and my life and my family,"

And previously in the article.... "knew who the treasury secretary was, so I assumed it was his wife,"

Followed in the article by "he used to advertise for brands that, I don't know, if her friends own them or what."

That's the bs you're defending? Seriously? This woman wouldn't last 3 posts on here.

#47 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 10:17 PM | Reply

Ummm.

The guy who is trying hard to redefine the meaning of "elected official" is now accusing others of "moving the goal posts."

That is actually happening. It is obviously a democrat's fault. Clearly a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of the party.

It may not be the reason he voted for donnie dealmaker, it is most certainly the reason he won though...

#48 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-08-22 10:20 PM | Reply

@#32 ... not one. Do you have a point? ...

Yup.

Your postings appear to be vacuous of facts.

Please convince me otherwise.

#49 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-08-22 10:22 PM | Reply


@#36 ... He was voted in by senators ...

He was nominated by Pres Trump, went through a confirmation hearing in the Senate, and was confirmed by the Senate.

That in no way, shape, or form, is "voted in" or "elected." He was confirmed.

If you want to take the high and mighty stance here, you really need to up your game.

#50 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-08-22 10:27 PM | Reply

#48 - What happens to the Secretary of State in 3 1/2 years when the new President is elected? These are not job openings where you submit a resume via HR and compete against other applicants. With the election of a President you also vote for that President's elected officials who are voted on by senators who the general public votes for in office. You don't get to vote on the desk clerk, but all of these appointments are elected officials. They lose their job upon the next....say it for me??? No?? ELECTION!!!

#51 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 10:30 PM | Reply

The only elected officials in the US federal government are the president, vice president, and the members of Congress. It's not complicated.

#52 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-08-22 10:36 PM | Reply

@#51 ... With the election of a President you also vote for that President's elected officials who are voted on by senators who the general public votes for in office. ...

No, you vote for the President.

You have no vote in the President's appointees.

When was the election for Mr Mnuchin? Around here we vote many times per year (town meetings and the resulting ballots) and I distinctly do not remember voting for Mr Mnuchin.

And the Senators do not "vote on" the President's appointees, the appointees are approved "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" ( www.heritage.org )

As I mentioned in a prior message, you really need to up your game here. You messages are beginning to look rather clueless.

#53 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-08-22 10:42 PM | Reply

Linton may be rich and she may be beautiful, but she has no class.

#54 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-22 10:45 PM | Reply

#53 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Yes. Obama kept Gates, a Bush-appointee, for example.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-22 10:46 PM | Reply

Linton may be rich and she may be beautiful, but she has no class.

Probably why donald elected her in the first place.

#56 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-08-22 10:48 PM | Reply

Not a direct vote yes. But you do determine who it is by your vote. You don't personally vote on legislation either. But you do vote for it by who you elect. It's called representation. And anyone holding any office based on my vote is a de facto elected official. Because if Hillary had been elected, this guy wouldn't be the SoT. Feel my flavor? That you narrowly define elected official as only those voted on by the general public is one thing. But it doesn't change the fact that all of the Supreme Court Justuces are elected officials. Not by direct vote. But by who was elected to the office. You and I in fact elected the judges by voting for the offices of the President and Congress. If you want to squabble of the narrow definition of "elected official", that's great. Doesn't change the fact that your vote determines who was SoT, which makes them indirectly elected officials. (Because if America had voted differently they wouldn't be in office)

#57 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 10:53 PM | Reply

That you narrowly define elected official as only those voted on by the general public is one thing.

Yes. That one thing being the definition of elected official.

#58 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-08-22 10:56 PM | Reply

#56 - Agreed. She shouldn't have replied. She should have just deleted the comment.

#59 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-22 10:59 PM | Reply


@#57 ... Not a direct vote yes. But you do determine who it is by your vote. ...

Do you really?

Candidate Trump ran against Wall Street throughout his entire campaign.

Since he won the Oval Office, that might be taken to mean that those who voted to put candidate Trump into the Oval Office may be less than happy with a bunch of Wall Street bankers being appointed to Trump administration positions.

But, there they are.

So, please inform me, how did the voters elect, say, Mr Mnuchin?

The answer is, they didn't.


... And anyone holding any office based on my vote is a de facto elected official. ...

You really need to understand the difference between "elected" and "appointed" and "confirmed."

Until you do, your messages will continue to look like nonsense.

If you want to put forth a valid point of view, you first have to have a valid point of view to put forth.

#60 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-08-22 11:02 PM | Reply

#36 wow the right is laying the stupid on thick lately but that post takes the cake.

And boaz is still a brainless moron.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-22 11:24 PM | Reply

The excuses that continue to gush forth from the Trumpet Blowers are simply laughable. Elected, ha ha ha! Envy, ha!

#62 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-22 11:32 PM | Reply

It's funny. Had the conversation been framed as derision of Trumpettes most of you on here certainly would have stated that Reps voted for this, elections have consequences, etc...to which I would agree with you. They did. I wouldn't have chased you down on "she wasn't elected, blah blah blah, Reps didn't vote for her". (And in case you haven't been following too closely, I didn't vote for Trump and I despise him...but I know not voting for Trump won't win me any points because I still have conservative listed on my profile).

I know the definition between elected, appointed, and confirmed. I also know that when I said "elected official" speak and lamp LEAPT at the opportunity to "correct" what I said...that's all they had left at that point. Just answer me one question. Did the Senate take a vote on confirming the SoT? The President appoints, but the senate confirms....by a vote. Just because it's not a general public election doesn't make our SoT's status any less than that of someone who was voted in, elected by elected officials.

But I digress...I'll even say you're correct. The SoT of state isn't an elected official. He's an appointed official. So to the issue at hand...can we discuss this woman and the article? Face it...this lady, Jennifer, is a troll who got ---- slapped. She didn't have the class to address the issue. She took a swipe at someone she didn't even know calling her deplorable and being snarky about being a freeloader. She was trolling. And she was wrong, this wasn't a personal trip. But she expects the woman she trolled to respond with class. It's a freaking double standard. You call out some self-absorbed fashion princess and get mad when she calls you out on your BS? You. Got. Served. With a big helping of southern sass. This was a trip due to her husbands role as an elected official and SHOULD have been paid for by taxpayers. She, Louise Linton, posted the photo on her personal Instagram and gave recognition to the fashion designers...something actressses do all the freaking time. What is the problem? Why are you defending an internet troll who got slapped with the facts? Because you identify with the troll? Because it was condescending? So was calling Louise a deplorable. Pot meet kettle. And if you can't see that a woman saying "her friends probably own those companies" isn't rife with envy....Are you FREAKING kidding me? Buahahaha!!

#63 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 12:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, she didn't get "bitch slapped". She got yelled at by a vain, vapid harpy who offers nothing to society.

Those defending her probably do so because they see a reflection of themselves and are acting reflexively.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 12:28 AM | Reply

What makes this Jennifer even worse than just a troll...(Which is actually a fun hobby if you have the time) is in an attempt to deflect criticism of herself she posted a picture of a gofundme account for a friend going through a rough time. Using the misfortune of others to defend yourself by showing how good of a person you are....that is truly deplorable. Show us Jennifer where you donated a dollar to this gofundme campaign, what your personal connection is to her, or how much you have supported her through this difficult time. I'm going to ASSUME (I mean hell, you've been doing a shi* ton of it) that you haven't given this woman a dime and have never posted this link in support of her. Fairs fair right? :-)

#65 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 12:30 AM | Reply

#65 et al and this is so important to you how? I mean madam you sure protest so much.

#66 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-23 12:38 AM | Reply

#64 - I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm tired of taking sides because of the R or the D beside someone's name. I've already said the reaponse was classless. But don't go off giving me this sob story about Louise being " an ostentatious, pretentious, condescending pig" (CBOB) because she defended herself. She was attached by an internet troll and responded. You've heard the saying don't feed the trolls.

BTW....Those defending Jennifer probably see a reflection of themselves and are acting reflexively. :-) Are you trolling me?

And I am reflexively defending Louise. Jennifer didn't know ---- about her but judged her based on an Instagram post. For all she knew, me too at this point, Louise could have been a humanitarian pioneer in women's rights for equal pay in Hollywood. She made an assumption and got called on it....then as is the Drudge standard...deflected.

#67 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 12:39 AM | Reply

Like I said before,you haven't posted in awhile but this is the battle you chose.

#68 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-23 12:46 AM | Reply

#66 - Because I care. Haha!! Cause this is drudge, because my gf has been teaching English for 4 hours tonight to kids in China while I'm sitting over here on the couch bored AF. (I have to be silent while she's teaching) I just want some attention, and I love calling -------- on people...and watching people FLOCK to attack me because I still have conservative on my profile even though I am mostly pro-choice, for gay rights, support public "welfare", anti-death penalty, anti-global American war and the MIC, have written and called my congressmen to impeach Trump, etc etc etc. Having grown up in the south to an ultra-conservative Christian family I feel I'm quite objective...like I said. I'm bored. So why do you care so much?

#69 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 12:47 AM | Reply

I said you don't understand what I said.
I said no no you're wrong
When I was a boy
everything was right

#70 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-23 12:52 AM | Reply

#68!- I comment based on the merits, not based on whether I identify with the party of the person to be defended or supported. Seems from your statement like you do. (You have commented here in a while, as if knowing my leanings would determine if you agree or disagree with me) This place is rife with people taking sides based on party. It only serves to weaken the lefts argument. I had to do a ton of self educating and wade through a crap ton of insults and attacks based on my conservative profile to evolve to a more liberal view on this site. I did it in spite of people here, not because of them. I am extremely adversarial. I enjoy it. But your message would come through to those on the right a lot clearer if you didn't get stuck up on silly things like defending internet trolls.

#71 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 12:54 AM | Reply

#71 fair enough.

#72 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-08-23 12:58 AM | Reply

What I do not understand is that people, such as Louise Linton, have to be told that comments like the ones she made are wrong.

#73 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2017-08-23 07:13 AM | Reply

#73 | POSTED BY SLBRONKOWITZ aka Big Jim Slade

She's probably accustomed to getting a free pass because she's hot.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-23 07:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#73 | POSTED BY SLBRONKOWITZ aka Big Jim Slade
She's probably accustomed to getting a free pass because she's hot.

#74 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-08-23 07:20 AM | FLAG:

Don't be a hottist, Jeff.

#75 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 08:46 AM | Reply

Why are you defending an internet troll who got slapped with the facts?

This isn't about facts. It's about a woman expressing an opinion about a public figure and getting insulted for not being wealthy. It's a perfect example of how entitled and out-of-touch the super-rich can be, and it's worth talking about since Trump filled his Cabinet with those fat cats.

The best part of Louise Linton's sneering response is where she claims she's given more to her country than her critic. What country is that, exactly? She was born in Scotland and didn't come to the U.S. until college. Her acting career is of little achievement and her movie production company puts herself in starring roles in extremely small budget movies. If you took her husband's money out of the equation, she might have contributed less in taxes to the U.S. than an average person.

#76 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 08:46 AM | Reply

JeffJ, thanks for the laugh this morning. Mrs Bronkowitz agrees with you.

#77 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2017-08-23 08:58 AM | Reply

BruceAZ, bonus points for quoting one of my favorite Beatles tracks.

#78 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 09:34 AM | Reply

#76 - Umm...couple facts for you Rcade.

1. She started her production company 5 years before she met her husband. So you actually don't know if taking her husbands wealth out of the equation would change her total tax contributions do you? Do you have some facts to back your claim? But, ala Trump style, you said "might". Doesn't matter that you insinuate she's only rich because of her husband because you didn't actually SAY she was only rich because of her husband. Kinda like Trump didn't SAY he supported racists, he just insinuated he did by his "both sides" comment.
2. She's appeared in CSI, Cabin Fever, and Cold Case. No she's not an A-lister. But my gf's sister is an actress. Being on those shows is actually kind of a big deal for non A-listers. Perspective. I'm sure there are more than a few actors and actresses that would be more than a little teed by calling their filmography list "of little achievement". You're beginning to sound like Louise, you condescending out-of-touch blogger you.
3. She is an American, at minimum, by marriage, so yes this is her country. Not her country of birth? Okay. But she lives and works in America, owns an American business, pays taxes to America and is an American citizen. So she gets to call this 'her' country. But again, you didn't SAY she wasn't. You just insulted her because this wasn't her country by birth. Damn. Rcade are you anti-immigration? You are beginning to sound like Trump!

So while you continue to deflect for a troll and make statements intended to insult and mislead...let's get back to the troll. You say this is about "a woman expressing an opinion about a public figure". Really? What was her opinion? I can't tell from her initial comment. All she said was "Glad we could pay for your little getaway. #deplorable" Is there an opinion in there being expressed? Seems to me to just be an accusation that Louise was on vacation on the public dime and that she was a deplorable person. This Jennifer said about a woman who she admits "I didn't know who she was, I just assumed she was Munchin's wife" (paraphrasing). She commented on, insulated, and accused someone who she knew nothing about. That type of ignorance and hatred is the SAME type of logic the racists, sexists, and bigots use. They judge someone they don't know based on the physical appearance and what they "think" that person might be like. It's called classism and it's just as reprehensible going up as it is going down. If you want to make an argument about income disparity, let's talk. But when you troll someone's personal Instagram account and get a response, don't come crying to me. Learn her lesson? Probably not. Too much projection and envy to realize her own prejudice, which is exactly what this was.

#79 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 11:48 AM | Reply

#79 - Clarification, by "change her total tax contributions" I meant in relation to being more or less than Jennifer's.

#80 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 11:50 AM | Reply

She started her production company 5 years before she met her husband.

Her company has only produced three low-budget, not-in-theaters movies: Odious, Intruder and Serial Daters Anonymous. Two are so small time they have received zero reviews from critics or users on IMDb. I challenge you to find any evidence she's earned a single dollar of income as a filmmaker.

You keep calling the Oregon woman a "troll" for posting a single comment of mild criticism on Linton's Instagram page. That's not a troll. It's not even close to a troll.

You're getting really worked up defending an entitled rich woman who is pretending she is a significant contributor of taxes to our country because her husband is rich.

All the woman did was make a comment on something Linton chose to show the public while on a U.S. government trip and you're flipping out about it. You can't stop attacking a citizen for posting a single sentence of rebuke.

Try not to worship the rich so much. It's gross.

#81 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's an analysis of whether Linton sacrifices more than the average tax-paying American:

www.npr.org

The idea a woman wearing an outfit worth over $13,000 deserves credit for her sacrifices is so stupid that only a Republican policymaker could believe it.

#82 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 12:32 PM | Reply

Linton's ex-husband claims that she got a starring role in the 2008 movie The Echo because he paid the producers $200,000:

www.foxnews.com

The so-called "troll" is doing a good job in interviews of laying a smackdown on Linton:

"She went to a state where one in five people lives in poverty and many children don't know where their next meal is coming from. Instead of helping in some way, she chose to brag about her outlandishly expensive clothes. It's more than tone-deaf, it's deplorable."

theslot.jezebel.com

#83 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 12:45 PM | Reply

Are you trolling me?

Only little.

This sort of thing is a perfect representation of how the right worships money. This next to useless gold digger has lots of cash, so righties assume she's worth something when in reality she's a pretty face with a rich husband. She has nothing to brag about and certainly shows how clueless she is by her post, essentially gloating over living high on the hog on tax dollars.

Righties used to be against that sort of thing.

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Righties used to be against that sort of thing.

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 12:48

When they had souls, yes.

#85 | Posted by Zed at 2017-08-23 12:56 PM | Reply

#81 - So you don't know how much she's made over the years? You're the one that made the claim. You tell me how much she's made. Why do I have to prove you wrong with the facts you don't have because you made a baseless accusation? (for those who remember a recent convo, baseless means without facts) Just because you made a statement doesn't make it true and the burden of proof remains with you sir. [...]

troll2
trōl/Submit
noun
noun: troll; plural noun: trolls
1.
a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.

I don't recall there being a quantity threshold for attaining troll status. See above.

I don't worship the rich. There's a bigger issue here about people making assumptions about other people based on their race, gender, religion, nationality, and social status. It's the same type of ignorance that promotes racism. That you can't see you're guilty of promoting this ignorance is what I am trying to point out. [...]

And if you think having money means someone has never sacrificed, maybe it's you who worships the money, because that's all you can see.

#86 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 12:57 PM | Reply

Jeez, Gavaster, all this time defending someone who clearly is waving her wealth in people's faces as a show of her perceived superiority. This is where you make your stand?

#88 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 01:05 PM | Reply

Why do I have to prove you wrong with the facts you don't have because you made a baseless accusation?

She's the one who made the claim of being a bigger financial contributor in taxes to this country than the woman who posted a single sentence of criticism.

As her defender, you should be able to show us how her claim could possibly be true. Your inability to do this shows that you know what the rest of us do -- she's a woman of extremely modest career achievement. She has no business claiming to be a bigger contributor in taxes than an average American.

As for you lying about how I earn my income, you might want to avoid doing that if you like posting here.

#89 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 01:09 PM | Reply

CBOB - Nope, I'm pointing out Jennifer being a troll and how someone like her who makes comments with no facts is the leading cause we are in the state we are in as a country today. People assume, make accusations, and call people names, as Jennifer said herself, knowing nothing about the person they are commenting on. It's not as bad, but it is the same thinking behind racists. I am arguing to stop the ignorance. This doesn't help you or me or anyone. When you are prejudice about someone, I don't care what your reasoning, you are in the wrong. Period.

#90 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jeez, Gavaster, all this time defending someone who clearly is waving her wealth in people's faces as a show of her perceived superiority. This is where you make your stand?

I've been marveling at that, too. This is an easy situation. A really rich woman got her feelings hurt and attacked a random critic for her income level.

There's no good way to defend that. It was a jerk moment, and since she's the Treasury Secretary's wife it got a lot of attention.

Nobody likes a rich person who thinks their money makes them better than somebody else.

#91 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nope, I'm pointing out Jennifer being a troll and how someone like her who makes comments with no facts is the leading cause we are in the state we are in as a country today.

There is only one fact in the statement, "Glad we could pay for your little getaway. #deplorable."

That fact is accurate. The U.S. government (and, thus, taxpayers) pays for official trips by Cabinet officials.

#92 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 01:17 PM | Reply

CBOB - Nope, I'm pointing out Jennifer being a troll and how someone like her who makes comments with no facts is the leading cause we are in the state we are in as a country today.
#90 | Posted by gavaster

Oh really? People like Jennifer created trickle down economics, outsourced jobs, and corrupted the election finance system? That's what created the state of the country today.

You just want the poor people to shut up and stay quiet about the rigged game that the rich have set up for themselves.

#93 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 01:18 PM | Reply

Gavaster is going to the mattresses for Linton? Talk about a waste of good mattresses. I suspect he was equally offended when people made fun of Leona Helmley or Imelda Marcos. People being annoyed with wealthy socialite parasites? The horror.

#94 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-08-23 01:20 PM | Reply

#89 - RCADE

See how you reacted when I made a false accusation about you and the way you make your money? You threatened to ban me from the site. You have the same instinctive reaction Louise did when someone lies about you makes up things about you. You get defensive. I don't think you get paid by the DNC to run a pro-leftist website. That's conspiracy stupid talk.

#88 - CBOB...I'm confused. Do you randomly go around commenting on Instagram photos of people you don't know calling them deplorable freeloaders? Must all politicians wives quit their jobs, not accept money for promotions etc, because their husbands enter politics? It's kinda sexist of you to want to put politician's wife in this little box of what is and is not acceptable behavior. I can maybe see your point about being careful about how you make your money. But I think it's wrong. This was her personal Instagram account, she's an actress, and if she is getting paid to promote these products, so what? It's called being a social media influencer. Big deal. Anyone with 5k followers can do the same thing.

#92 - I tend to think of getaways as vacations from work, not business trips. Is that not the common understanding?

#95 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#88 - CBOB...I'm confused. Do you randomly go around commenting on Instagram photos of people you don't know calling them deplorable freeloaders?

#95 | POSTED BY GAVASTER AT 2017-08-23 01:21 PM | FLAG:

I don't, no.

As for the rest of your post, I don't know what else I can say. If you can't see by now the tastelessness in Linton flaunting her wealth, it's pointless to continue.

#96 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 01:29 PM | Reply

#94 - The horror is seeing people rush to judgment about two individuals based on their party affiliation. That's how Trump got elected. I wish it would stop. Party politics is killing this country.

#93 - Yes, please do tell me that Jennifer was REALLY trying to bring up income disparity. It took a social media blow up and making this into a national news story to make the leap to that conversation. Happy to discuss that topic at anytime. But that's not what started this fight. And yes I think it's funny when trolls get a response and it's not the response they were expecting. It's easy to take swipes at people you don't know on the internet.

#97 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:31 PM | Reply

#96 | POSTED BY CBOB - You don't, I don't. Why did Jennifer? Why did she make a comment on someone's instgram she didn't even know and call them deplorable? Prior to the response she got, couldn't Louise Linton have been a humanitarian?

#98 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:32 PM | Reply

See how you reacted when I made a false accusation about you and the way you make your money? You threatened to ban me from the site. You have the same instinctive reaction Louise did when someone lies about you makes up things about you. You get defensive.

I did not criticism her for getting defensive. I criticized her for what she said when she got defensive.

Linton could have responded in a number of different ways. She chose "I'm rich so I'm better than you." That's never going to look good, but I suspect that deep down it's what she and her husband believe.

... if she is getting paid to promote these products, so what?

She wasn't paid. But if she was, using a government trip to make paid product endorsements of the clothes you're wearing would raise the eye of government ethics law investigators. That would best be something to do on your own time.

#99 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 01:34 PM | Reply

Why did she make a comment on someone's instgram she didn't even know and call them deplorable?

If a public figure has an Instagram that takes public comments, why shouldn't Jennifer have posted a response with her opinion? You keep finding weird nits to pick about this. The whole point of being a celebrity posting on Instagram is to attract the public's attention.

#100 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 01:36 PM | Reply

#91 | POSTED BY RCADE - They were both jerk moves. Jennifer made an unprovoked insult and accusation. Louise replied in a condescending sassy defensive manner. Two peas in a pod. Louise I can understand a bit more. Even you RCADE got a bit defensive earlier when attacked. Being an internet troll, well, even I get bored sometimes so I can understand Jennifer as well. haha!

#101 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:40 PM | Reply

#96 | POSTED BY CBOB - You don't, I don't. Why did Jennifer? Why did she make a comment on someone's instgram she didn't even know and call them deplorable? Prior to the response she got, couldn't Louise Linton have been a humanitarian?

#98 | Posted by gavaster

Maybe because the person she was attacking represents everything wrong with america. Shallow self interest, materialism, gold digging, and the rich rigging the game.

The rich made their bed, now they're complaining that they have to lie in it. I'm sure she'll sleep fine while the victims of her husband's efforts struggle to figure out how to survive.

#102 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 01:42 PM | Reply

#99 | POSTED BY RCADE - Absolutely. I agree 100%. Any politician or their wife/family should be VERY careful about how they make their money. But that didn't happen here. So it's not actually an issue here.

#103 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:43 PM | Reply

#102 | SPEAKSOFTLY

Louise Linton came from money. She was going to be just fine without the SoT's money. Her family owns a castle in Scotland and are worth millions. She stepped up in the 1%, but she was most likely never going to be below the 1%.

You're taking the defense that as long as who I'm attacking deserves it then it's okay. That's a dangerous precedent and not one I want to share.

#104 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:50 PM | Reply

They were both jerk moves.

I disagree. Jennifer's comment was fair criticism of someone on an official government trip making a big deal about their expensive clothes.

#105 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 01:53 PM | Reply

She stepped up in the 1%, but she was most likely never going to be below the 1%.

More like the .01%. The 1% are people earning around $250,000. Today's fat cats are way above that.

#106 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 01:55 PM | Reply

Tweet of the week:

I'm wearing a $10 dress and I don't have to --- Steve Mnuchin @TheRachelFisher

#107 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 01:55 PM | Reply

#100 | RCADE

Why is it deemed unnatural to defend oneself? It is instinct. It's reflexive. Human nature. People aren't robots. Why can't we be human? She made a mistake and apologized and made it right. All good, forgiven. Jennifer has never apologized, is shamelessly self-promoting, deflecting, and even throwing MORE shade. On top of that she insinuated, "getaway", this was a private vacation this woman was on, and it wasn't. Where is her apology? Or does the end justify the means? Louise is rich and thus deserving of criticism, even if the critique wasn't accurate, it was close enough because #incomedesparity. I don't get what there is about Jennifer to defend here.

#108 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:57 PM | Reply

"She made a mistake and apologized and made it right." - #108 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 01:57 PM

I understand that most death row inmates, just before they're executed, admit they made a mistake and apologize.

By your "logic" that makes what they did right.

#109 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 02:00 PM | Reply

Why is it deemed unnatural to defend oneself? It is instinct. It's reflexive.

This is a cop out. Just because you are defending yourself doesn't give you a free pass. "Instinct" didn't make her say what she said. She made a choice.

I'm tired of wading through your weird excuses for this woman's behavior.

... this was a private vacation this woman was on, and it wasn't.

Tell that to Linton. She's the one acting like she was on a ritzy vacation getaway.

#110 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 02:06 PM | Reply

You're taking the defense that as long as who I'm attacking deserves it then it's okay. That's a dangerous precedent and not one I want to share.

#104 | Posted by gavaster

I'm taking the defense that the rich have been waging war on the poor for a long time. It's not ATTACKING to start fighting back. It's common sense.

#111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#105 | RCADE

Then I disagree with you. She was an actress before she became a politicians wife. She's not an elected official. She doesn't bear the same weight of responsibility her husband does. IMO. I don't feel this is the same as leveraging your position for money like the issues we are having with lobbyists and corporations. Here is Louise's actual comment with her post. "Great #daytrip to Kentucky! #nicest #people #beautiful #countryside #usa" What is wrong with that?

The tags on her photo are actually hidden unless you click on the photo. You can't even see them based on her post or her comment. Only if you like the photo can you tell she tagged the designers.

#112 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:09 PM | Reply

#109 | HANS Wow. We've gone from name calling to murder. Sheesh. Now THAT's a leap.

#113 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:11 PM | Reply

#110 | POSTED BY RCADE - You havne't looked at her post have you? Here's what she said "Great #daytrip to #Kentucky! #nicest #people #beautiful #countryside #usa" I'm not sure how that offends you.

#114 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:12 PM | Reply

#111 | SPEAKSOFTLY

Great topic if you want to discuss it. But that's not what started this Insta battle. If you can't see that there is something wrong with someone who'll say "maybe her friends own the brands or something" then we'll never agree on this convo. I disagree with people who throw out rando unsubstantiated bullcrap. You can't get away with here on the drudge. People will call you on it. I'm just applying the rules of the internetverse to this spat as well.

#115 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:17 PM | Reply

Let me ask you all this. Are there any virtuous rich people?

#116 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:25 PM | Reply

Let me ask you all this. Are there any virtuous rich people?

#116 | Posted by gavaster

Of course. They just don't get hired by goldman sachs.

Let me ask you this - how do you feel about trump filling his white house with goldman sachs bankers after attacking hillary for her goldman sachs associations?

#117 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 02:27 PM | Reply

Are there any virtuous rich people?

Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:25 PM | Reply

There's a lot of them but they are poor monetarily speaking.

#118 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#117 - I think that anyone who didn't see that coming didn't pay any attention during the campaign. It's two faced and hypocritical. That's Trump in a nutshell.

So ALL goldmansachs employees are bad. Gotcha. I disagree. I don't paint with so large a brush.

#119 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:34 PM | Reply

"You havne't looked at her post have you? Here's what she said "Great #daytrip to #Kentucky! #nicest #people #beautiful #countryside #usa" I'm not sure how that offends you.

#114 | POSTED BY GAVASTER"

I know it is well established you have reading comprehension issues, but did you read her reply? She implied that those of us that aren't rich and famous deserve to be second-hand citizens because we pay less in taxes. Despite the high likelihood that we all pay a higher tax rate than her and her husband. I wouldn't expect someone dumb enough to choose Mnuchin as a sugar daddy to understand rates, however.

#120 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 02:34 PM | Reply

#118 | Laura

What a sad view of the world. If you have money you lose your virtue. So what's my limit? At what point do I lose my virtunity? And how does that work exactly? Is there a chart? Like tier 1 is $50k net worth, tier two is $150, tier 3 etc.....but in percentage of virtue I have left? Kinda like graduated income tax brackets!! Where the top bracket is 100% devoid of virtue! (Yes I'm making fun)

#121 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:50 PM | Reply

So ALL goldmansachs employees are bad. Gotcha. I disagree. I don't paint with so large a brush.

#119 | Posted by gavaster

I'm sure they have some fine cleaning ladies. But you don't get to the top of that organization by having morals or ethics.

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 03:04 PM | Reply

"We've gone from name calling to murder." - #113 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:11 PM

No, "we" haven't.

You were the one equating an apology with making the transgression "right."

You're using the "only a little bit pregnant" argument.

My #109 highlights the absurdity of that "argument."

#123 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 03:06 PM | Reply

She's not an elected official. She doesn't bear the same weight of responsibility her husband does.

No one says she bears the same weight of responsibility. But if you go on an official U.S. government trip with your Cabinet official husband, it is fair to judge whether your behavior is appropriate. You have some responsibility to the public because we pay for those trips and they are conducted to represent us.

#124 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 03:06 PM | Reply

What a sad view of the world. If you have money you lose your virtue. So what's my limit? At what point do I lose my virtunity? And how does that work exactly? Is there a chart? Like tier 1 is $50k net worth, tier two is $150, tier 3 etc.....but in percentage of virtue I have left? Kinda like graduated income tax brackets!! Where the top bracket is 100% devoid of virtue! (Yes I'm making fun)

#121 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

What you will find is that not too many people like my attitude about many things whether they be here or in my personal life. I'm perfectly OK with that.

#125 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 03:12 PM | Reply

#120 - She has a law degree from the University of West Los Angeles School of Law. But I'm sure she paid for that too. No need to prove it of course because she has money so she OBVIOUSLY did. You know what. You're probably just right about everything. No need to prove anything. Just say whatever you want and make me disprove your baseless accusations.

She implied that about us lowly income earners? She did? Umm. Wanna connect those dots for us? Oh that's right. You don't have to!! You said it so I have to disprove it. I keep forgetting. Here I thought she was defending the accusation that she was abusing the taxpayers money by going on a personal getaway.

#126 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:13 PM | Reply

#122 - do you want to lay out for us just how you get to the top of goldmansachs? It seems you have some insider information about how corrupt you must be to get there. Didn't know if there was like a lie cheat and swindle quota or something. I mean. You couldn't possibly get three by earning a degree in finance from a respected university and work your way up In the company. Interior "secret" policy is you have to be a pos too. Do tell!

#127 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:18 PM | Reply

What a sad view of the world. If you have money you lose your virtue. So what's my limit? At what point do I lose my virtunity? And how does that work exactly? Is there a chart? Like tier 1 is $50k net worth, tier two is $150, tier 3 etc.....but in percentage of virtue I have left? Kinda like graduated income tax brackets!! Where the top bracket is 100% devoid of virtue! (Yes I'm making fun)

#121 | Posted by gavaster

Close. It's actually simple enough for even you to understand: If you make your money by screwing over innocent people then you lose your virtue. At least in the eyes of decent people. Republicans see no problem with it.

#128 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 03:27 PM | Reply

#123 - HANS

You confused the commonly used phrase "making it right", i.e. apologizing, taking the post down, saying what she said was wrong, paying for the government's expenses of trip to ensure there is no inpropriety etc. with saying what she DID was right, i.e. giving sass and making fun of a troll, etc. Two TOTALLY different things.

I forget, I should be more clear. It's easy to confuse resurrecting someone from the dead and giving them their life back with saying murdering them in the first place was a-okay. Especially for people who don't read comments and just jump in the middle of the convo.

#129 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:28 PM | Reply

#124 | RCADE - Yes you do. I just don't feel like that extends to a personal post on Instagram. The sassy response, yes. She should have had more tact and not been condescending or personal. She should have merely stated that this was not a vacation and she was on a trip with her husband as required by his office. But it's so FUN to be sassy! I love a girl with a little sass. Sarcasm turns me on.

#130 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:30 PM | Reply

I love a girl with a little sass. Sarcasm turns me on.

#130 | Posted by gavaster

Too bad you're not a billionaire. You could get a sexy materialistic insensitive spoiled sheltered bitch just like that one.

#131 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 03:33 PM | Reply

#125 | LAURAMOHR

You do you. More power to you. But with my full-time job plus a career in real estate in one of the hottest markets in America I'm going to, hopefully, lose some of my virtue by making a pile of cash. Yes I'll be working 60-80 hour weeks, most nights and weekends and giving up some of my freedom of schedule, but I'd like some security before I settled down and have kids. That's just me.

#132 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:34 PM | Reply

Too bad you're not a billionaire. You could get a sexy materialistic insensitive spoiled sheltered bitch just like that one.

#131 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 03:33 PM | FLAG: Misogyny

#133 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 03:36 PM | Reply

#131 | SPEAKSOFTLY

Don't need her. I already have a highly educated, world travelling, entrepreneurial, high-spirited beautiful woman who gives me all the sass I can handle. And she loves me no matter how much money is in my pocket.

#134 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:38 PM | Reply

Too bad you're not a billionaire. You could get a sexy materialistic insensitive spoiled sheltered bitch just like that one.

#131 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 03:33 PM | FLAG: Misogyny

#133 | Posted by DirkStruan

Hating horrible women is feminist. Treating them differently than you'd treat a horrible man would be sexist.

#135 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 03:45 PM | Reply

#126 you start with a non sequitur. What does her law degree have to do with her choosing munching as a sugar daddy?

And I don't have to prove it because she said it. Just because you have reading comprehension problems doesn't change the fact that she belittled people with lower incomes.

#134 Pamela Handerson?

Gavaster the commenting disaster.

#136 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#128 | SPEAKSOFTLY

Laura and I were discussing her accusation that NO ONE with money has virtue. If you want to comment on her conversation with me do try and keep our conversation separate about GS separate. We know you believe all goldman sachs employees are evil, I mean almost all, I mean those at the top, I mean those at the top who knew that trading distressed debt was financially irresponsible...just to be clear. Oh wait, we haven't reached that point in the conversation yet. You were still broad brushing. Sorry to interrupt. Continue.

#138 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:47 PM | Reply

Laura and I were discussing her accusation that NO ONE with money has virtue. If you want to comment on her conversation with me do try and keep our conversation separate about GS separate. We know you believe all goldman sachs employees are evil, I mean almost all, I mean those at the top, I mean those at the top who knew that trading distressed debt was financially irresponsible...just to be clear. Oh wait, we haven't reached that point in the conversation yet. You were still broad brushing. Sorry to interrupt. Continue.

Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:47 PM | Reply

Are there any virtuous rich people?

Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 02:25 PM | Reply

There's a lot of them but they are poor monetarily speaking.

#118 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

OOPSIE DAISY I didn't say what you claimed I said. Please respond in kind next time. THANK YOU.

#140 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 03:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I forget..." - #129 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:28 PM

Of course you did.

"I should be more clear."

That would be a first.

#141 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 03:54 PM | Reply

#138 more reading comprehension issues. Gavaster the disaster doesn't know that hyperbole exists as a rhetorical device. Sad!

#142 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#136 | INDIANAJONES

"I wouldn't expect someone dumb enough to choose Mnuchin as a sugar daddy to understand rates,"

She has a law degree. I would expect someone dumb enough to have a law degree to be able to understand rates. Sorry, I forget your ability to interpret what other people mean by what they say is a bit selective. Next time I'll use the point and counterpoint system for you so you can follow along.

Here I thought Louise was giving sass because, despite Jenn's comment, she wasn't on vacation and was actually on official business. To drive the point home she brought up how much she and her husband pay in taxes as a defense because in Louise's mind, so what, she pays enough taxes to cover the expense of the trip even if it wasn't for official business. That's where she's wrong. I didn't feel for a second attacked as a second class citizen because I'm not worth $300 Million. If anything Louise needed to be correct that it doesn't matter how much she pays in taxes, we are all citizens and have equal representation. (haha, funny joke I know) If you did feel talked down to as a second class citizen, well, that says more about you than Louise IMO.

"Pamela Handerson" - She was hot wasn't she? But no. My girl's better than a Baywatch chick...not really my style, the pamela type.

#144 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:07 PM | Reply

#144;

And Ben Carson is a brain surgeon but still dumb as dirt. My uncle is a medical doctor but has zero knowledge of politics. Savantism is real. Just because she has a law degree does not mean she is immune to stupidity or greed. I'm not surprised you take an appeal to authority approach though, since you believe in the similar fallacy of seniority equaling correctness or competence.

"If you did feel talked down to as a second class citizen, well, that says more about you than Louise IMO."

If you didn't interpret her response as saying she is better and more deserving because she is rich, you provide further evidence that you have a reading comprehension problem. Another bit of evidence is that you think Pamela Anderson is Pamela Handerson. When you can't properly read, you miss obvious jokes.

#145 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#140 | LAURAMOHR

#146 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:16 PM | Reply

"I already have a highly educated, world travelling, entrepreneurial, high-spirited beautiful woman who gives me all the sass I can handle." - #134 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 03:38 PM

Mrs. Gavaster the Commenting Disaster

Feel the sass.

#148 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 04:24 PM | Reply

#145 - IJ

Yes. I expect someone with a law degree to be able to understand tax rates, which is what you originally stated wasn't expected. Then you brought up Ben Carson, medical doctors, and savantism. I can't keep track of all of your logical fallacies and ignorance. You only get one question per post and until you answer it you don't get another one.

Do you or do you not believe someone with a law degree would be able to understand how much they pay as a tax rate? Yes or no. That's all I'm asking.

#149 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:25 PM | Reply

148 - Jealous? I knew you would be. Funny, I didn't even list half of her amazing attributes!

#151 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:25 PM | Reply

"148 - Jealous?" - #151 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:25 PM

Of Mrs. Gavaster the Commenting Disaster?

Not at all.

#152 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 04:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#145 | INDIANAJONES

And yes. When you're calling some a freeloader, which is essentially what Jennifer did, I have no issue with the response being how much taxes are being paid by who. Jennifer called Louise a freeloader. Lousie replied back, I pay a lot of taxes, which translates, I'm not a freeloader. I pay taxes too.

#154 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:29 PM | Reply

"Oh no! Personal attack! He's making fun of me!" - #155 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:31 PM

Took you long enough to figure that out.

#156 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 04:32 PM | Reply

"I pay a lot of taxes..." - #154 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:29 PM

No you don't.

#158 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-23 04:33 PM | Reply

#154 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

She treated a government-paid trip as a personal vacation. That misuse would constitute freeloading. Try again Disaster.

#159 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 04:33 PM | Reply

Is Gavaster the reincarnation of Goatman? The blathering sure looks familiar.

#160 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-08-23 04:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#159 - IJ

I see you can't answer my one question. Try again.

Do you or do you not believe someone with a law degree would be able to understand how much they pay as a tax rate? Yes or no.

#161 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:38 PM | Reply

While we're on the topic of expensive gifts, tomorrow is my 12th anniversary as a Drudgie.

Rogers, refresh my memory. You promised some kind of major award for my 12th anniversary, but I can't recall what it was. I just remember that you said you valued my steadfast support of the DR all these years, particularly since you still don't have pictures or an edit function. Let me know if you need a shipping address.

#163 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 04:40 PM | Reply

#158 - Uh-huh!

#164 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 04:40 PM | Reply

While we're on the topic of expensive gifts, tomorrow is my 12th anniversary as a Drudgie.

Rogers, refresh my memory. You promised some kind of major award for my 12th anniversary, but I can't recall what it was. I just remember that you said you valued my steadfast support of the DR all these years, particularly since you still don't have pictures or an edit function. Let me know if you need a shipping address.

Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 04:40 PM | Reply

Hey I've been here longer and all I ever get are nasty grams. If you get something good from RCADE Be thrilled.

#165 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 04:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Gavaster: Calling everybody a troll is the most troll-like behavior in this discussion. I know she's good looking and she posed for Maxim but try to calm yourself.

#167 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 04:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

What kind of coward and annoying tool has to make an alternate username anyway?

#168 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 04:57 PM | Reply

While we're on the topic of expensive gifts, tomorrow is my 12th anniversary as a Drudgie.

Congratulations. Your asshat is in the mail.

#169 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 04:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"SpeaksMisogynistically?"

take this from someone who locks horns with speak all the time. He's not a misogynist.

#175 | Posted by eberly at 2017-08-23 05:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What would you call it?"

insulting you.

#177 | Posted by eberly at 2017-08-23 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hilarious. One "progressive" loon vs. another "progressive" loon. Pass the popcorn.

#174 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 05:14 PM | FLAG:

Progressives are great at policing themselves. Might be why they don't drive cars into crowds of demonstrators like your kind.

#179 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 05:20 PM | Reply

"He's not a misogynist."

Who here is? Name names.

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-23 05:20 PM | Reply

#149 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

"Yes. I expect someone with a law degree to be able to understand tax rates... Do you or do you not believe someone with a law degree would be able to understand how much they pay as a tax rate? Yes or no. That's all I'm asking."

No. Stop "broadbrushing"; to use your own terms. I think they should but to assume because they have law degree they absolutely do is your favorite logical fallacy; an appeal to authority.

"...Then you brought up Ben Carson, medical doctors, and savantism. I can't keep track of all of your logical fallacies and ignorance."

Sorry your reading comprehension issues prevent you from understanding how other examples of people being intelligent in one field but not in others relates to her inability to understand how rates work.

"You only get one question per post and until you answer it you don't get another one."

Ah, an admittance of your poor communication skills. I don't even want one question from you. You are a fool. I simply enjoy commenting and pointing out your foolishness. You don't need to ask me anything, I will continue to destroy your absurd statements until Rcade shuts inevitably shuts down the thread once you've completely turned it into a cesspool of people pointing out how moronic the things you say are.

#181 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 05:21 PM | Reply

He just used a gendered slur, got called out, and tripled down. What would you call it?

#176 | Posted by DirkStruan

I'd call it dirk can't debate so he's playing word police instead.

#182 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 05:22 PM | Reply

#167 - And it was FHM. Get it right Rcade. Maxim is filth.

#184 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 05:23 PM | Reply

"#167 | RCADE
Ah, more insults and disparaging comments.
#178 | POSTED BY GAVASTER"

It wasn't insulting. It was funny. We're all asshats here on the DR and if you can't at least admit that, maybe you don't belong. Being asshats is all a part of the fun, Gav.

#186 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 05:24 PM | Reply

yongyeol.com

Food for thought for those who pretend language doesn't matter.

#187 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 05:27 PM | Reply

This thread has gotten seriously weird.

#188 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#167 - And it was FHM. Get it right Rcade. Maxim is filth.

Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 05:23 PM | Reply

Oh who cares!!!!!!! They are BOTH overpriced garbage. Marie Claire is cheaper and you learn more stuff in the process.

#189 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 05:32 PM | Reply

We have got to party like it's 1789!

#190 | Posted by john47 at 2017-08-23 05:36 PM | Reply

"Via a gendered slur"

doesn't make him an actual misogynist.

#191 | Posted by eberly at 2017-08-23 05:37 PM | Reply

" I am calling a gendered slur a gendered slur."
#185 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

No.... You are assigning a gender to a common slur. Did he say w----? No. B---- is not gendered in 2017. Language is not concrete.

Doth thou concur?

#192 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 05:38 PM | Reply

#193 | Posted by DirkStruan

Oh then youre a coward who can't debate so you resort to complaining about political correctness and arguing over word definitions, because that's what you do.

#195 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#189 | LAURAMOHR

Buahaha!! OMG Laura. Chill the ef out. It was a joke.

#196 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 05:45 PM | Reply

www.bbc.com

Another good article on the origin and evolution of the term in question.

#197 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 05:46 PM | Reply

#194 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

By that logic, literally every adjective you could use on a two sex species is gendered. And you are the one trying to argue about how important language is. Funny stuff.

#200 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 05:51 PM | Reply

Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 05:49 PM | Reply

I'm sorry I call BS. Just because you say the B word that doesn't make you a fake feminist. You should hear the conversations that go on at a LGBT Club/Bar. WOW You would be driven insane.

#201 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 05:53 PM | Reply

#205 | Posted by DirkStruan

This is why people whine about it. Because idiots get fixated on one word which they dont like and then scream and cry about it instead of debating anything.

Meanwhile you PRETEND to be offended on behalf of someone else so that you don't have to engage in any real debate.

What a whiny little bitch you are.

#206 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 06:10 PM | Reply

--Quadrupling down, eh fake feminist?

Like being called a "fake feminist" is an insult. lol. Better a fake than a real, Andrea Dworkin feminist.

#209 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 06:19 PM | Reply

#207 | Posted by DirkStruan

Actually it does. Look at what has happened to this thread since you started playing word police.

#211 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#186 - IJ I feel bad for you. I'll try help still as best I can. Here are your definitions for the day.

Broad-brushing - passing judgment on an entire group of people because of the actions of a few.

Expectation - a belief that someone will or should achieve something.

For context let's use your words... When discussing a law graduate's ability to be able to understand tax rates you said "I think they should". So by definition, since you think law graduates should be able to achieve understanding of tax rates, which is what expectation means....you believe that law graduates SHOULD be able to achieve something, then you by definition actually expect that Louise Linton can or would be able to understand the tax rates. This is a classic example of where you will deflect and run away. So don't get distracted. Do you either a.) maintain your second position which is that you expect law graduates to be able to understand the tax rates and by extension that Louise Linton, as a law graduate, understands the tax rates or b.) do you hold to your first position which is that you don't expect Louis Linton to be able to understand the tax rates. Now, you and I know it's b. You don't expect her to be able to understand tax rates. But just state for the record that you were wrong or misspoke when you said that you "think" law students "should" be able to understand, or learn to understand, the tax law. Tell us how you believe anyone with a law degree, despite their years of study and preparation, are not extended by you the courtesy of being thought of as capable of comprehending (which was really started out as comparing) the tax rates. You don't give law graduates the credit that they would be able to do basic remedial math. So tell me Indiana. Why do you hate law graduates? Did you fail out of law school? Was a lawyer mean to you one time? Do you have animosity against those who abuse the legal system and make money off of people's misfortune? I can't believe you hate law graduates.

#218 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 06:28 PM | Reply

Hey Nulli, remember that thread where you joked about sugar and caffeine being date rape drugs? Way to show your concern for the problem of sexual violence! /snark

#219 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 06:29 PM | Reply

"It is NOT usable as a general insult. It is a gendered insult and functions differently depending on whether the target is male or female, as has already been explained. Is this too complex for you?
#202 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN"

Maybe 20 years ago. It is 2017. Men call men B----, and men call women B----, and women call women, B---- and women call men B----.

#220 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 06:30 PM | Reply

Maybe 20 years ago. It is 2017. Men call men B----, and men call women B----, and women call women, B---- and women call men B----.

#220 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES AT 2017-08-23 06:30 PM | FLAG:

And it means different things in each of those instances, hence it is not a general insult. Again, pretty simple stuff.

#221 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 06:34 PM | Reply

Look indeed: the discussion has gone on, with a new discussion added to the mix. I hasten to add, had you admitted your error and repented, even the latter would not have materialized. You are obviously quite committed in your misogyny.

#214 | Posted by DirkStruan

No I'm quite committed to not giving in to word police of any political persuasion. Word policing drives people right into the arms of terrible politicians who rant against PC culture and gets people like trump elected.

And the thread is now totally off topic thanks to you and your wagging little finger.

#222 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Repent, fools!

#223 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 06:36 PM | Reply

Repent, fools!

#223 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 06:36 PM | FLAG:

It isn't too late for you to become a decent human being.

#225 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 06:43 PM | Reply

"#186 - Indiana...you are incapable of factual conversation.
#203 | POSTED BY GAVASTER "

The pot calls the kettle black again. I was referring to RCade's asshat comment, that was my bad. I didn't see what he said about your hand. It is amazing you typed that entire paragraph accusing me of committing your logically fallacious statements. Again you prove yourself to me the most moronic poster on this site.

"Maybe one day you'll be able to look yourself in the mirror and admit you don't have an 'effin clue what you're talking about."

Heed your own advice, kid.

"Passing judgment on an entire group of people because of the actions of a few." That is exactly what you've done by suggesting all law degree recipients understand the difference between rate and aggregate.

I must say, thank you for reminding me just how stupid some people can be. If we keep that in mind perhaps we can create a society that doesn't do to others the disservice you were treated to; a lack of decent education. To sum your comments up, you don't understand the difference between should and can, you don't understand the difference between an expectation and a qualification, and you don't know the meaning of either logical fallacy or hypocrite. I would expect if she was capable of getting a law degree that she would understand rates because it is by comparison an easy to understand concept. Just because I expect her to know it does not mean she does.

#226 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 06:44 PM | Reply

Because you say so?

#229 | Posted by DirkStruan

It's off limits or SUPER offensive because YOU say so?

Stop being such a whiny little bitch -----------.

#230 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 06:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

It is a gendered slur whether I say so or not.

#231 | Posted by DirkStruan

Except then Laura says it isn't. I'll take her word over yours.

#234 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 07:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Except then Laura says it isn't. I'll take her word over yours.

#234 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 07:05 PM | FLAG:

Nice try, but I've already explained how the use she describes is very different from the way you use the term. Or are you going to start using the n-word next?

#235 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 07:06 PM | Reply

"Look at Speak's increasingly enraged and incoherent posts, dear reader"

Don't you have a Marxist study group to conduct? You're going to be late.

#236 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 07:08 PM | Reply

"It is a gendered slur whether I say so or not.
#231 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN"

If you are going to be such a pedant that you think the word is still gendered, then I'd like to point out the word actually means female dog. So really it is nonsensical to call a human a b---- if we are ignoring that language evolves.

"Look at Speak's increasingly enraged and incoherent posts, dear reader."
-The incoherence must be your problem, because I understand him. The enragement is the result of you insistence that a non-sexist word is sexist.

"See what it looks like when one dares to question privilege, even that if a sworn progressive."
-What? Did Gavaster dictate this non-sequitur to you?

#237 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 07:08 PM | Reply

Except then Laura says it isn't. I'll take her word over yours.

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 07:05 PM | Reply

wichita.gaycities.com

That will have him in a tizzy.

PS RCADE It's SAFE Not what you might think.

#240 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 07:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That will have him in a tizzy.
PS RCADE It's SAFE Not what you might think.

#240 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-08-23 07:17 PM | FLAG:

Cute... but addressed in post 204....and again in 235.

#241 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 07:20 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org(slang)#Modern_use

Modern use can include self-description, often as an unfairly difficult person. For example, in the New York Times bestseller The Bitch in the House, a woman describes her marriage: "I'm fine all day at work, but as soon as I get home, I'm a horror....I'm the bitch in the house."[17] Boy George admitted "I was being a bitch" in a falling out with Elton John.[18]

#242 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 07:23 PM | Reply

#242

That hurts your case: the use provided is self-deprecating.

#243 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 07:26 PM | Reply

I never disputed there are different ways to use the term. It doesn't change the way Speak used it.

#244 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 07:28 PM | Reply

Oh and my old man used to call me long before I came out to him. You're being an insufferable insolent B today and he saw me as male then too so take that for what it's worth.

#245 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 07:29 PM | Reply

Oh and my old man used to call me long before I came out to him. You're being an insufferable insolent B today and he saw me as male then too so take that for what it's worth.

#245 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-08-23 07:29 PM | FLAG:

Also addressed previously. The fact that it is usable on males doesn't make it less gendered: it means something different when used on males (as a way to disparage one's masculinity).

#246 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 07:33 PM | Reply

"You don't find it an interesting observation? How a claimed leftist can react like a reactionary when it comes to the issue of offensive language?
#238 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN"

In what world is using the contemporary meaning of a word reactionary? Here is a new word for you to learn, since you must not know the definition: www.google.com

If I say "wow that Mayweather v McGregor fight was SICK!" do you really think I meant it was ill?

#247 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 07:44 PM | Reply

I never disputed there are different ways to use the term. It doesn't change the way Speak used it.

#244 | Posted by DirkStruan

Tell me how I used it and then count the number of posts youve written to complain about it.

#248 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 07:55 PM | Reply

"In what world is using the contemporary meaning of a word reactionary?"

The real one. He was using an offensive term, a gendered slur. When challenged, he doubled down. That is what is reactionary.

"If I say "wow that Mayweather v McGregor fight was SICK!" do you really think I meant it was ill?"

False comparison. I know that there are many meanings for the word he used. His particular use, and many others, was as a gendered slur. You've given no real grounds to dispute that. The possible alternative use of the word changes not a thing. So, do you have anything else to contribute?

#249 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 07:57 PM | Reply

"Tell me how I used it"

Already have: as a gendered slur.

"and then count the number of posts youve written to complain about it."

So what is the acceptable post limit for calling out a misogynist? Just for future reference.

#250 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 07:59 PM | Reply

So what is the acceptable post limit for calling out a misogynist? Just for future reference.

#250 | Posted by DirkStruan

It takes one post to falsely accuse anyone of anything. It's taken you dozens. What an underachieving little bitch.

#251 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 08:00 PM | Reply

In case you people missed my links on 187 and 197, feel free to educate yourselves.

#252 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 08:03 PM | Reply

In case you people missed my links on 187 and 197, feel free to educate yourselves.

#252 | Posted by DirkStruan

Were those links to who is allowed to say what and when?

People like you help trump get elected.

#253 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 08:05 PM | Reply

#251

I didn't falsely accuse you of anything, you raging misogynist... as your posts continue to demonstrate. Better mail back in your "This is what a Feminist looks like" t-shirt...

It is just amazing how much like Nulli you sound...

#254 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 08:05 PM | Reply

#226 | INDIANAJONES

And again with the goal post movement!! Great job! It started out as "rates" and now it's "the difference between rate and aggregate" as if that actually changes the fact that you are comparing percentage rates to one another, something almost any 4th grader can understand. And don't think I haven't noticed you moved Louise's comments from "more than you" to "more than as a percentage of income". Boy you sure are sly. Next thing I know you're going to be telling me what you REALLY meant was that you didn't expect Louise to calculate her own property, sales, state, federal income, and capital gains taxes as an individual and then to do the same for someone else and THEN compare the two. Is that what you really meant? Cause if so I'm all in. I agree. But when you use the term "higher rate" I assume you mean comparing percentages of income. And I will still stand by my assessment of law graduates. I expect them to be able to add and subtract numbers under 100 and tell me which one is the most.

"Despite the high likelihood that we all pay a higher tax rate than her and her husband. I wouldn't expect someone dumb enough to choose Mnuchin as a sugar daddy to understand rates, however."

Keep moving those goal posts as many times as you need to until you find a position that works. Regardless, I still expect anyone with a law degree to be able to understand that cumulative tax rates on an individual with $100k in annual income is greater than the cumulative tax rate on an individual with $1mil in annual income. It's comparing percentages. How freaking hard is that? Why you think that is so complicated is beyond me. It's also a strawman argument because it's not what Louise said. It's what you said in order to prove a point because you can't actually disprove her statement as being false. So you want to setup this argument about aggregate rates and argue that point when Louise never mentioned what "rate" she pays, only that she pays more than Jennifer.

And in your defense of calling me broad brusher, you're missing a key element. That key element being "because of the acts of a few". I didn't say I expect all law students to be able to understand tax rates because I know 3 lawyers who do. I said I expect ALL lawyers to have the ability to understand tax rates, as it's simple math. I made a judgment. Not a broad brush. You, again, are wrong.

"Heed your own advice" I do.

Should - indicating a desirable or expected state.
"by now students should be able to read with a large degree of independence"

If you think someone with a law degree "should" be able to understand tax rates...it means you think they can understand tax rates. What you are now trying to move the goal posts to, and it is in your last statement, is the distinction between "do" and "should". And I suggest you get there fast before you look even more the fool. But it won't help you. What you're going for is you don't expect Louise can right now at this moment understands the difference rate and aggregate. So now that we've moved it from expect, to should, to can, to does. Let's discuss "does understand". Here's your definition of understand - "perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of (something)". What you PROBABLY meant was "know". Here's that definition - "have knowledge or information concerning". So next time you want to run along on this rabbit trail of a chase, take off thunder. It's a wide open world out there. You just go on being as ignorant as you want to be. Run free.

#255 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-08-23 08:06 PM | Reply

"Were those links to who is allowed to say what and when?"

Some words are offensive, slick. If you use them, expect to get called out. Or, you know, you could grow some damned decency and STOP using them. But you won't, because you are an entitled little thing who believes he can use whatever sort of verbal abuse hendamned well pleases.

"People like you help trump get elected."

Pretty sure it was people like you... misogynists are an important part of his base!

#256 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 08:08 PM | Reply

So what is the acceptable post limit for calling out a misogynist?

About 40 fewer comments than you posted. Stop being a gendered slur and let people have a discussion that doesn't revolve around your calculated overreaction to a mild pejorative.

#257 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-23 08:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Right. Offense at an offensive term is always "calculated" for some dark purpose. Offense should always be delimited by those who, conveniently enough, aren't the ones being offended. How did these sorts of reactionary assumptions infiltrate otherwise liberal discourses.

And I hasten to add, I have not prevented anyone from discussing anything: the o/p discussion went along concurrently with the linguistic sidebar my comments (quite surprisingly) prompted. Post 255 surely proves that.

#258 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 08:30 PM | Reply

Some words are offensive, slick. If you use them, expect to get called out.

#256 | Posted by DirkStruan

I choose to be horribly offended by the name "slick."

How dare you. What a rotten misogynist you are.

#259 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 08:47 PM | Reply

Jesus God Buddah Akhbar, Dirk. When Nulli makes more sense than you do, we're in deep loaf. STFU.

#260 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 08:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I apologize for my last post.

I meant Buddha.

#261 | Posted by cbob at 2017-08-23 08:50 PM | Reply

I choose to be horribly offended by the name "slick."
How dare you. What a rotten misogynist you are.

#259 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 08:47 PM | FLAG:

Idiotic strawman. The offensive character of the word younused is well established, documented, etc. I have provided you with a carefully researched history of the term and why it is offensive. I have provided data indicating the tangible harm such language does. But you don't care. You like the word and will keep using it, no matter how much of a hypocrite it makes you.

#262 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 08:53 PM | Reply

Do you think people never had conversations like this about the n-word? Or any number of slurs against minorities of various sorts?

#263 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 08:54 PM | Reply

Do you remember when gay was used as a pejorative (as in "that is so gay")? Why is that less frequent now?
Because people (gay and straight) started to push back against that usage and people listened.

#264 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 08:57 PM | Reply

--Jesus God Buddah Akhbar, Dirk. When Nulli makes more sense than you do, we're in deep loaf. STFU.

lol. As a buddhist, I choose to take that as a compliment.

p.s. Dirkstraun sucks!

#265 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 08:59 PM | Reply

p.s. Dirkstraun sucks!

#265 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 08:59 PM | FLAG:

Another well thought out critique, you sophomoric basement dweller.

#266 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:01 PM | Reply

#265

What sect of Buddhism do you belong to?

#267 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:04 PM | Reply

Do you remember when gay was used as a pejorative (as in "that is so gay")? Why is that less frequent now?
Because people (gay and straight) started to push back against that usage and people listened.

#264 | Posted by DirkStruan

That's because people don't choose to be gay dum dum.

They CHOOSE to be a bitch.

BITCHES aren't a protected minority group.

#268 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another well thought out critique, you sophomoric basement dweller.

#266 | Posted by DirkStruan

Is it painful going through life permanently constipated?

#269 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 09:06 PM | Reply

"That's because people don't choose to be gay dum dum."

So what?

"BITCHES aren't a protected minority group."

Women are, and the term has a very particular and offensive meaning to them.

#270 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:09 PM | Reply

"BITCHES aren't a protected minority group."

Women are, and the term has a very particular and offensive meaning to them.

#270 | Posted by DirkStruan

How does that work when there are more women than men?

#271 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:12 PM | Reply

Is it painful going through life permanently constipated?

#269 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 09:06 PM | FLAG:

Back to the "compassion and sensitivity are a huge buzz kill" narrative. I feel a great swell of pity for the people in your life if you walk around with that sort of attitude. "Don't mind that slur I just used... if you complain you are just uptight so shut up and take it. Also, FREEDOM!!1"

Yeah, I'll bet you are TONS of fun...

#272 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:13 PM | Reply

How does that work when there are more women than men?

#271 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 09:12 PM | FLAG:

A protected group then. Don't be obtuse.

#273 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:14 PM | Reply

"BITCHES aren't a protected minority group."

You should put this on a shirt and walk around and see how feminist people think you are...

#274 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:16 PM | Reply

Don't be obtuse.

#273 | Posted by DirkStruan

Say that to the mirror about a thousand times.

#275 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:18 PM | Reply

--What sect of Buddhism do you belong to?

I don't care for sects. All I need is the 4 Noble Truths and the 8-Fold Path. Other people can argue about doctrinal differences. That's a waste of time.

#276 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 09:19 PM | Reply

Say that to the mirror about a thousand times.

#275 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 09:18 PM | FLAG:

So which is it? Am I nitpicking or am I being obtuse?

#277 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:23 PM | Reply

I don't care for sects. All I need is the 4 Noble Truths and the 8-Fold Path. Other people can argue about doctrinal differences. That's a waste of time.

#276 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 09:19 PM | FLAG:

So... what? You just googled those concepts and played it by ear? No practices, no scriptures, no community of believers?

#278 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:25 PM | Reply

So which is it? Am I nitpicking or am I being obtuse?

#277 | Posted by DirkStruan

You've managed to do both all day long. Quite an accomplishment.

#279 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#255 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

Maybe I'll read that later. You aren't worth the time and I just got home from work so I feel like not dealing a moron for a bit. You need to learn to get your point across more concisely.

#268 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY:
#270 | Posted by DirkStruan :

"the term has a very particular and offensive meaning to them."

Not anymore. The way you say it to them could have that particular meaning but text on the internet doesn't have tone so that the point is moot. I read Speak's usage as the colloquial bitch I define in #220 but you read it as man would mean to his cheating wife it seems. Bottom line, from the comments I've seen of Speaks, he isn't a misogynist. Besides, its ad hominem because you used it to try to nullify his statement. He's right that it is a feminist thing to think a horrible woman is one. I've met women that are dicks. Feminism is treating women like people. Linton sucks but she was correct about Game of Thrones. Besides;

Profanity will be filtered.

I guess it isn't offensive since it isn't filtered. Case closed.

#280 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 09:33 PM | Reply

You've managed to do both all day long. Quite an accomplishment.

#279 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 09:30 PM | FLAG:

Really? I am sure examples are forthcoming then. Since, you know, you have given up even trying to defend your misogyny and have switched to incoherent babble...

#281 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:34 PM | Reply

--You just googled those concepts and played it by ear?

Yeah, that's right, Dirk. I haven't been studying the dharma for years. I just googled it. lol

#282 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 09:34 PM | Reply

#280

Your reading is bizarre, Jones. The term was used alongside a series of other disparaging terms in a critical, even insulting, post. It clearly functioned as a pejorative in the post in question.

#283 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:37 PM | Reply

Yeah, that's right, Dirk. I haven't been studying the dharma for years. I just googled it. lol

#282 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 09:34 PM | FLAG:

Studying for years, huh? You didn't say that. You said 4 truths, 8 fold path. So? You DO have scriptures? Scriptures imply sects. Or perhaps a teacher or community? That implies a sect as well.

I am trying to puzzle out what this sectless Buddhism of yours looks like in practice...

#284 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:40 PM | Reply

Really? I am sure examples are forthcoming then. Since, you know, you have given up even trying to defend your misogyny and have switched to incoherent babble...

#281 | Posted by DirkStruan

Yeah and you've given up trying to defend your pedophilia even after babbling incoherently all day.

#285 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:42 PM | Reply

You've managed to do both all day long. Quite an accomplishment.

#279 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 09:30 PM | FLAG:

Hey, how can a person be both nitpicking and obtuse all day anyway? Seeing as they are opposites and all... or has your logic failed you again? Oh dear.

#286 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:42 PM | Reply

A whore brags about her bling and people defend her?

#287 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-08-23 09:43 PM | Reply

Hey, how can a person be both nitpicking and obtuse all day anyway?

#286 | Posted by DirkStruan

Is that kind of like how can a person be both crusading against online bullying and supporting the biggest online bully in the world?

Now we're back to where we started on another thread.

#288 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah and you've given up trying to defend your pedophilia even after babbling incoherently all day.

#285 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 09:42 PM | FLAG:

Nice try, but you don't get to imply that the charge of misogyny is unfair (as the charge of pedophilia is against me). We ARE what we DO, remember? You have used gendered slurs repeatedly on this and other threads, each one a little act of misogyny published and out there for the whole world to see. So, you see, we all know you are a misogynist. You've proven it. It isn't even in question anymore.

The question is, how do you explain it? How do you still call yourself a feminist?

#289 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:46 PM | Reply

Nice try, but you don't get to imply that the charge of misogyny is unfair (as the charge of pedophilia is against me).
#289 | Posted by DirkStruan

Equally fair. Equally accurate.

#290 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:47 PM | Reply

"Is that kind of like how can a person be both crusading against online bullying and supporting the biggest online bully in the world?"

Why no, actually. You accused me of two mutually exclusive forms of argumentative conduct. Which is not the same as hypocrisy (which, incidentally, you also failed to prove in the thread to which you were referring).

#291 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:48 PM | Reply

Equally fair. Equally accurate.

#290 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 09:47 PM | FLAG:

Nope. For reasons I explained. Use of misogynistic terms makes you a misogynist. Own it.

#292 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:49 PM | Reply

Nope. For reasons I explained. Use of misogynistic terms makes you a misogynist. Own it.

#292 | Posted by DirkStruan

Sure and touching kids makes you a pedophile. Pretty gross though dude. You're really damaging them for the rest of their lives.

#293 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:50 PM | Reply

"BITCHES aren't a protected minority group."

-Speaks the "feminist" totally NOT engaging in misogyny /snarky

#294 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:51 PM | Reply

"Sure and touching kids makes you a pedophile."

So prove I've done so, and you'll have a point, women-hater.

#295 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:52 PM | Reply

"They CHOOSE to be a bitch."

-Speaks the "feminist" on women

#296 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:53 PM | Reply

"Hating horrible women is feminist."

-Speaks the total non-misogynist on "feminism"

#297 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:55 PM | Reply

So prove I've done so, and you'll have a point, women-hater.

#295 | Posted by DirkStruan

Prove I hate women and you'll have one. Good luck convicting someone on the use of one word, used in the same way as the rest of society, women and feminists included, all the time.

You've thrown a 3 thread tantrum over it all day long. Too bad you cant see how bad I'm laughing each time you keep going.

#298 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-23 09:55 PM | Reply

--You DO have scriptures? Scriptures imply sects. Or perhaps a teacher or community? That implies a sect as well.

Why do you care? Every buddhist is familiar with the original discourses of the Buddha, the Pali Canon, from which there are variations, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Chan/Zen, Pureland, etc. They all have wisdom to impart and all start with the original canon.

#299 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 09:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This Bitch needs to go on vacation with the Obama's!
Of course we will pay for it!

#300 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-08-23 09:56 PM | Reply

I love a girl with a little sass. Sarcasm turns me on.
#130 | Posted by gavaster
Too bad you're not a billionaire. You could get a sexy materialistic insensitive spoiled sheltered bitch just like that one.

#131 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 03:33 PM | FLAG:

-Speaks showing his trademark "respect" for women

#301 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 09:57 PM | Reply

"Boy you sure are sly."

That wall of text | POSTED BY GAVASTER

No I'm not. I just follow simple logic. You think I'm sly because you don't seem to understand logic and you take everything literally. I don't really believe she doesn't understand rates, I was just being a smartass because I think this woman was wrong to be condescending about wealth when there is so much economic grief right now. Anyone that associates with trump to further his agenda is a bad person and if Linton was a good person she would have gave Mnuchin an ultimatum like the Mooch's wife. More evidence to your being a moron.

"aggregate rates"

The aggregate cash value of the taxes, not the "aggregate rate". Read more carefully. "you are now trying to move the goal posts to[;]...is the distinction between 'do' and 'should...'" No, I was just pointing out your fallacies. "'should' be able to understand tax rates...it means you think they can understand tax rates." Objectively incorrect. "I didn't say I expect all law students to be able to understand tax rates." You've just undermined your original statement thus supporting me. Broadbrushing/generalizing -- a minute difference. Your original claim was that she must know what a rate is because she is a law degree recipient, yet you don't expect them all to necessarily know what a rate it? Why could she logically not be in that small minority as you foolishly claimed?

#303 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-23 09:59 PM | Reply

Why do you care? Every buddhist is familiar with the original discourses of the Buddha, the Pali Canon, from which there are variations, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Chan/Zen, Pureland, etc. They all have wisdom to impart and all start with the original canon.

#299 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 09:55 PM | FLAG:

Theology is an interest of mine and eastern religions categorize differently, so I want to see what your practice of your faith looks like. It would be very odd to meet someone who just said he didn't believe in Christian sects but just Jesus and the commandments or something.

#304 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:01 PM | Reply

And what about those other threads, Speak? Should I direct them to the thread where you laughingly indicate the First Lady is us using her husband as a "meal ticket" (read: that she is a gold digger)? So MUCH respect for women in THOSE posts...

#305 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:05 PM | Reply

Good God grave Marie are we STILL at it??? I'm going to leave you two alone to slug it out. I'm gonna take a bubble bath and relax my sophisticated mind.

#306 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 10:07 PM | Reply

Speaking of targeting children....

"Their entire family are scumbags, crooks, and materialistic liars."

-Speaks, on a thread about whether the children of the president should be subject to political attack

#307 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:09 PM | Reply

--It would be very odd to meet someone who just said he didn't believe in Christian sects but just Jesus and the commandments or something.

I don't there's anything odd about it. Why shouldn't someone take inspiration from the New Testament without joining any particular denomination, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc.? It says more about your ideological predisposition to put people into neatly labeled boxes. Christ didn't found any particular Church, and neither did the Buddha.

#308 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 10:11 PM | Reply

"He's a slimy millionaire goldman sachs banker APPOINTED to his position because the people would never elect a fat cat like him or HIS GOLDDIGGiNG WIFE."

(Emphasis mine)

-"Feminist" Speaks, once again showing his "respect for women" wayyyy upthread in post 35

#309 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:13 PM | Reply

Is it "golddigging" or his tacit approval of the institution of marriage via the apellative "wife" that disrespects all women, not just the one he's intending to disreprect?

Or was it the capital letters, since capital letters stand taller than their lowercase counterparts, and capital letters are used to stress importance, thus mirroring a society that views men as more important than their shorter women counterparts?

How about... all of the above?

#310 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-23 10:18 PM | Reply

"Christ didn't found any particular Church, and neither did the Buddha."

Not true, actually. Christ selected representatives and gave them tasks, assigned them a leader, gave them authority, and sent them out into the world. The Buddha taught and commented on the disposition of monks and nuns (his decision to allow the latter at the request of his aunt was referred to by a professor of munenas "the only argument the Buddha ever lost"). Both ended up establishing teaching that became codified in scripture, recommended particular practices, in a word, established what we today would call religions.

#311 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:19 PM | Reply

A professor of mine^

#312 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:19 PM | Reply

"Is it "golddigging" or his tacit approval of the institution of marriage via the apellative "wife" that disrespects all women, not just the one he's intending to disrespect."

Gold digging is an insult. Do you dispute that? And the use of the word wife does not imply any position on marriage.

"Or was it the capital letters, since capital letters stand taller than their lowercase counterparts, and capital letters are used to stress importance, thus mirroring a society that views men as more important than their shorter women counterparts?
How about... all of the above?"

Yeah, making fun of feminism is hilarious. All those women need to just shut up and calm down and stop pestering the men folk about equal wages and sexual assault and the general disrespect they've endured since pretty much forever, right?

#313 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:24 PM | Reply

There should be a name for this: promote the logical conclusions of what progressives almost universally say they favor in a case that inconveniences them personally, and you will all at once find yourself attacked from every side for "over-reaching."

Would we even be having this discussion about a slur for an ethnic group? Or a slur for gays? Would this have become such a massive thread-spanning controversy?

#314 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:30 PM | Reply

Have you figured out how many angels fit on the head of a pin, yet? These doctrinal variations are irrelevant. The buddha was a pragmatist, who emphasized skillful vs. unskillful thought and action.

#315 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 10:34 PM | Reply

"Have you figured out how many angels fit on the head of a pin, yet?"

A not uninteresting question, actually.

"These doctrinal variations are irrelevant. The buddha was a pragmatist, who emphasized skillful vs. unskillful thought and action."

A pragmatist? What a strange phrase. Very Western. The point is that one way or another you end up taking a stand on these sorts of questions, right? The institutions associated with these religions arose for a reason. So, what? You just ignore that the Buddha told people to go and become monks and nuns and to live in such and such a way?

#316 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:40 PM | Reply

"It says more about your ideological predisposition to put people into neatly labeled boxes."

What do you suppose your non-denominational Buddhism says about your own ideological predispositions?

#317 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 10:48 PM | Reply

I'm taking the defense that the rich have been waging war on the poor for a long time. It's not ATTACKING to start fighting back. It's common sense.

#111 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I believe you mean "it is instinct. It's reflexive".

Right gavaster?

#318 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 10:50 PM | Reply

Too bad you're not a billionaire. You could get a sexy materialistic insensitive spoiled sheltered bitch just like that one.
#131 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-08-23 03:33 PM | FLAG: Misogyny

#133 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Eat a dick.

#319 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 10:53 PM | Reply

You just ignore that the Buddha told people to go and become monks and nuns and to live in such and such a way?

Pretty sure that Siddhārtha Gautama never said any such thing.

#320 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 10:55 PM | Reply

#320

Think again:

en.m.wikipedia.org

"The order of Buddhist monks and nuns was founded by Gautama Buddha during his lifetime between the fifth and fourth centuries BC."

#321 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:00 PM | Reply

--What do you suppose your non-denominational Buddhism says about your own ideological predispositions?

It shows an agreement with Buddha's teachings of non-attachment to views and opinions.

#322 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 11:01 PM | Reply

Eat a dick.

#319 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-08-23 10:53 PM | FLAG:

Nice, erudite response there, slick. Did you think of it yourself?

#323 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:01 PM | Reply

Hmmm,"monks and nuns", what strange nouns. Very Western.

And here you are accusing Nulli of Googling things about Buddha.

Btw, Hindi has its own word for Pragmatism...व्यावहारिकता

#324 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:03 PM | Reply

--A pragmatist? What a strange phrase. Very Western. The point is that one way or another you end up taking a stand on these sorts of questions, right?

Actually it's very buddhist. The Buddha refused to answer some metaphysical and cosmological questions on the grounds that it was a pointless distraction from practice.

#325 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 11:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It shows an agreement with Buddha's teachings of non-attachment to views and opinions.

#322 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 11:01 PM | FLAG:

Is that a view of opinion? (Couldn't resist).

I could read that concept as pluralistic (not getting attached to a particular view) or as trying to... what, overcome-by-surpassing (uberwindung) all worldviews?

#326 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:05 PM | Reply

Thanks for defining pluralistic for the class, Dirk.

#327 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:07 PM | Reply

"Hmmm,"monks and nuns", what strange nouns. Very Western."

Am I being inaccurate?

"And here you are accusing Nulli of Googling things about Buddha."

I was just asking. Not accusing.

"Btw, Hindi has its own word for Pragmatism...व्यावहारिकता"

Sure. I just meant pragmatism, philosophically, is a preoccupation of Western thought. William James, Richard Rorty, those sorts of projects.

#328 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:07 PM | Reply

Thanks for defining pluralistic for the class, Dirk.

#327 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER AT 2017-08-23 11:07 PM | FLAG:

I am not trying to be condescending... I put a definition in parentheses because there are several senses in which one can use the term in this context...

#329 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:09 PM | Reply

As an aside, I just showed the latter part of this thread to my wife, who was raised Buddhist, and she said "who is this ------ and why does he care?"

Love it.

#330 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And she wasn't trying to be condescending or insulting, since there are several senses in which one can use the term "------" in this context...

#331 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:11 PM | Reply

Actually it's very buddhist. The Buddha refused to answer some metaphysical and cosmological questions on the grounds that it was a pointless distraction from practice.

#325 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-23 11:04 PM | FLAG:

Sure. But some such questions ended up getting addressed. I mean there is a "philosophical Buddhism" that critiques Hindu metaphysics and cosmology. And particular sects ended up with, at times, quite elaborate cosmologies of their own (Thunder vehicle, Pure Land). Wrong turns, by your reckoning?

#332 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:12 PM | Reply

"As an aside, I just showed the latter part of this thread to my wife, who was raised Buddhist, and she said "who is this ------ and why does he care?""

Charming.

#333 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:13 PM | Reply

And she wasn't trying to be condescending or insulting, since there are several senses in which one can use the term "------" in this context...

#331 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER AT 2017-08-23 11:11 PM | FLAG:

Hell of a way to respond to someone asking questions in good faith.

#334 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:13 PM | Reply

And the ableist slur is noted as well.

#335 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:14 PM | Reply

About 40 fewer comments than you posted. Stop being a gendered slur and let people have a discussion that doesn't revolve around your calculated overreaction to a mild pejorative.

#257 | POSTED BY RCADE

Bitch slapped by the blog God!

LOL

*fist bumps Rcade*

#336 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jesus God Buddah Akhbar, Dirk. When Nulli makes more sense than you do, we're in deep loaf. STFU.

#260 | POSTED BY CBOB

You got put in your place more than 70 posts ago, dirk.

A man with any dignity would have slunk off to lick his woulds by now.

#337 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:18 PM | Reply

No practices, no scriptures, no community of believers?

#278 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Are you seriously bagging on the man for being independent enough to avoid the sham that is organized religion?

#338 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:21 PM | Reply

"You got put in your place more than 70 posts ago, dirk."

Because you say so, you trolling hack? And your own crass gesture of support for a misogynistic slur is, what? The picture of profundity?

#339 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:22 PM | Reply

Are you seriously bagging on the man for being independent enough to avoid the sham that is organized religion?

#338 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-08-23 11:21 PM | FLAG:

I am trying to see what "disorganized" religion is supposed to look like.

#340 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:23 PM | Reply

An acclaimed Buhddist calling someone a ------. Absolutely classic.

Or is she a recovering Buhddist, similar to me being a recovering Catholic.

I'm hoping for the latter, NULLI. And cheers to your family.

#341 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-23 11:23 PM | Reply

Buddhafidian, lmao!

Buddha would never have coddled him some Nazis.

#342 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-23 11:25 PM | Reply

And she wasn't trying to be condescending or insulting, since there are several senses in which one can use the term "------" in this context...
#331 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

Yeeeeeah right, Counsel. She was aiming for the jugular: outright insult was the intent and the glove has got to fit!

#343 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-23 11:26 PM | Reply

"An acclaimed Buhddist calling someone a ------. Absolutely classic."

Right? I mean what the actual hell!

#344 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:28 PM | Reply

Nazi coddler! lol

As usual, that's the deepest thoughts you can get from this intellectual mediocrity.

#345 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 11:29 PM | Reply

Have you figured out how many angels fit on the head of a pin, yet? These doctrinal variations are irrelevant.

Not to a waterhead like -----------.

He lives to follow and regurgitate whatever nonsense is fed to him.

Just read his post history, if you can stand the DR equivalent of The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerBalls.

#346 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:31 PM | Reply

Nice, erudite response there, slick. Did you think of it yourself?

#323 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Just probing for a trigger for another hysterical tangent about *insert buzzword* slur.

#347 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:35 PM | Reply

"-----------."

You've done better, JP. Strive for more in life than settling for the low hanging fruit, eh?

#348 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-23 11:35 PM | Reply

*insert buzzword* slur.
#347 | POSTED BY JPW

I take it back (#348). You may have found it.

#349 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-23 11:37 PM | Reply

Thanks for defining pluralistic for the class, Dirk.

#327 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

Cut him some slack.

He probably just learned about it in class this week and is riding his pompous high until the weekend.

#350 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:37 PM | Reply

I am trying to see what "disorganized" religion is supposed to look like.

#340 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

One where the followers aren't told what to believe or shown Wiki pages to question their approach.

I figured you as a good Progressive wouldn't have needed that sort of explanation.

#351 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:40 PM | Reply

You've done better, JP. Strive for more in life than settling for the low hanging fruit, eh?

#348 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

It was from another user up thread and is based on the content of the thread.

Strive for not posting without read a thread first, eh?

#352 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:42 PM | Reply

Just probing for a trigger for another hysterical tangent about *insert buzzword* slur.

#347 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-08-23 11:35 PM | FLAG:

How positively Trumpian of you. Provoking just to cause distress.

#353 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:43 PM | Reply

is she a recovering Buhddist, similar to me being a recovering Catholic.

She is still a Buddhist, but that doesn't keep her from calling like it is, hence the "qualifier" in the next post.

#354 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:44 PM | Reply

"One where the followers aren't told what to believe or shown Wiki pages to question their approach."

How can you have a belief system without beliefs, you incoherent dolt?

And what do you have against questioning someone's approach to things? Can your own beliefs not survive questioning?

#355 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:47 PM | Reply

You seem to revel in being the champion of everyone at all time, so I'm just trying to brighten your day, dirk.

BTW I never seek to cause legitimate distress. You exhibit such over the top faux indignation I can't take you seriously. If I should be, you should be seeking professional help.

#356 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-23 11:47 PM | Reply

He probably just learned about it in class this week and is riding his pompous high until the weekend.

#350 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-08-23 11:37 PM | FLAG:

Someone has to instruct the likes of you.

#357 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:48 PM | Reply

You exhibit such over the top faux indignation I can't take you seriously. If I should be, you should be seeking professional help.

Dirk has that innate ability to make everyone hate him...even Buddhists.

#358 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:49 PM | Reply

--One where the followers aren't told what to believe or shown Wiki pages to question their approach.

Buddha's address to the Kalama clan:

" "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

#359 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-23 11:49 PM | Reply

"You seem to revel in being the champion of everyone at all time."

Where as you delight in tearing them down. Your mother must be proud.

#360 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:49 PM | Reply

Dirk has that innate ability to make everyone hate him...even Buddhists.

#358 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER AT 2017-08-23 11:49 PM | FLAG:

So much for compassion, huh?

#361 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:51 PM | Reply

You know every time you argue what a certain word means to another person. You reduce the ability for words to mean more than one thing thereby making you a proverbial stick in the mud.

#362 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-23 11:52 PM | Reply

#359
Yet that is a teaching... passed down as a scripture... there is a tension there, surely.

#363 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:54 PM | Reply

You know every time you argue what a certain word means to another person. You reduce the ability for words to mean more than one thing thereby making you a proverbial stick in the mud.

#362 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2017-08-23 11:52 PM | FLAG:

So we can never criticize slurs, in your view?

#364 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-23 11:57 PM | Reply

So much for compassion, huh?

Buddha recognized that dvesha is a normal part of the human condition, and while it being an integral part of the akusala-mula it did is what made a human fallible, but was still human at its essence...not to be shunned or embraced but as part of recognition of the whole.

#365 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:58 PM | Reply

"it is what made"

#366 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-23 11:59 PM | Reply

Someone has to instruct the likes of you.

#357 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

No. You just may very well be the only person more pompous than the theater/philosophy double major I knew in undergrad.

And that's a steeeeep f'in hill to climb.

#367 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-24 12:02 AM | Reply

"No. You just may very well be the only person more pompous than the theater/philosophy double major I knew in undergrad."

Before or after you dropped out to start your exciting career as a bitter trolling garbage poster?

#368 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 12:05 AM | Reply

Buddha recognized that dvesha is a normal part of the human condition, and while it being an integral part of the akusala-mula it did is what made a human fallible, but was still human at its essence...not to be shunned or embraced but as part of recognition of the whole.

#365 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER AT 2017-08-23 11:58 PM | FLAG:

Actually pretty instructive. Thank you!

Here I thought you were going to say your vicious, unprovoked insult was to shock me into mindfulness or something...

#369 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 12:07 AM | Reply

Here I thought you were going to say your vicious, unprovoked insult was to shock me into mindfulness or something

That is the problem, Dirk, you presuppose peoples answers and/or positions and then assign them those positions without listening to what they are actually saying.

And it wasn't in anyway unprovoked.

#370 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-24 12:16 AM | Reply

Before or after you dropped out to start your exciting career as a bitter trolling garbage poster?

#368 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Pfft you think I needed to try hard to excel in a classroom full of snowflakes like you while trolling in my off hours?

#371 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-24 12:18 AM | Reply

"That is the problem, Dirk, you presuppose peoples answers and/or positions and then assign them those positions without listening to what they are actually saying."

I didn't even say anything.

"And it wasn't in anyway unprovoked."

The hell it wasn't. I was asking questions in good faith and you bite my head off. What did I do to deserve it?

#372 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 12:22 AM | Reply

What did I do to deserve it?

Clogging up the whole blog for 2 days?

#373 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-08-24 12:26 AM | Reply

Pfft you think I needed to try hard to excel in a classroom full of snowflakes like you while trolling in my off hours?

#371 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-08-24 12:18 AM | FLAG:

I think you'd need to try hard to excel at nosepicking, you semi-literate twitter troll. And newsflash: "snowflake" is alt-right garbage-speak for "decent human being."

#374 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 12:27 AM | Reply

Clogging up the whole blog for 2 days?

#373 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2017-08-24 12:26 AM | FLAG:

Say what you will about my argumentative posts on other subjects, I was perfectly respectful in the Buddhism discussion, surely.

#375 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 12:29 AM | Reply

#345

Too late for you to deny it... too many people here have watched you make Deflections, Obfuscations, and False Equivalencies for Nazis.

Well, when you weren't busy running away...

www.drudge.com

www.drudge.com

#376 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-24 12:32 AM | Reply

I think you'd need to try hard to excel at nosepicking, you semi-literate twitter troll.

LOL hate twitter and don't use it.

As for semi-literate, I'm sure if we got into it yoyd pull a bunch of pompous s--- from your arse to justify your poor poor delicate existence being better and more enlightened than ,ine.

And newsflash: "snowflake" is alt-right garbage-speak for "decent human being."

Usually, yes. Although there are plenty of people on the left deserving of the derogatory connotation. Care to guess which category you fall into?

#377 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-24 12:38 AM | Reply

"The term was used alongside a series of other disparaging terms in a critical, even insulting, post. It clearly functioned as a pejorative in the post in question.
#283 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN"

Do you believe that all disparaging, critical, and insulting statements are sexist? Speaks correctly states that saying disparaging, critical, and insulting statements to women that deserve such statements is feminist in nature. Are you confusing feminism with matriarchy?

#378 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-24 01:36 AM | Reply

"Do you believe that all disparaging, critical, and insulting statements are sexist?"

In the post you quote, I am pointing out that we can tell that Speaks intent was pejorative from CONTEXT (the other pejorative comments).

"Speaks correctly states that saying disparaging, critical, and insulting statements to women that deserve such statements is feminist in nature."

What sort of feminism have you studied that calls for insulting anyone?

#379 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 01:41 AM | Reply

"LOL hate twitter and don't use it."

LOL? What are you, 12?

"Usually, yes. Although there are plenty of people on the left deserving of the derogatory connotation. Care to guess which category you fall into?"

Just the sort of thing a Trumper would say.

#380 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 01:45 AM | Reply

LOL? What are you, 12?

A 12 year old would probably use Twitter you dumb ----.

Just the sort of thing a Trumper would say.

LOL you'd probably have trouble finding people who think I am a Trump supporter on this site.

In any case, you are the very type of person who the right uses as a caricature of the entire left.

To which I say go ---- yourself. You are a detriment to the left as a whole and I highly doubt it is because you are a member of every single minority group in existence right now.

#381 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-24 02:17 AM | Reply

"A 12 year old would probably use Twitter you dumb ----."

...but you are too stupid and immature so you got Permmabanned so you inflict yourself on us? How very sad.

"LOL you'd probably have trouble finding people who think I am a Trump supporter on this site."

And yet here you are acting like one... and not even one of the brighter ones, at that. Pretty embarrassing.

"In any case, you are the very type of person who the right uses as a caricature of the entire left."

As opposed to an insult hurling "LOL"ing confessed troll like you? Question: how did your brain learn human speech?

"To which I say go ---- yourself."

Your usual "enlightened" response. I can just tell you burned some braincells on that one. Better be careful: you wouldn't want to run out...

#382 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 02:37 AM | Reply

..but you are too stupid and immature so you got Permmabanned so you inflict yourself on us? How very sad.

What? Either I don't get this or it's as bad as I think and it supports my idea that you're a ------...

Yup. Option 2.

And yet here you are acting like one... and not even one of the brighter ones, at that. Pretty embarrassing.

What's embarrassing is your post history. You're a far bigger tool than any other poster on this site with your constant feeefeeeeeee --- ---------.

As opposed to an insult hurling "LOL"ing confessed troll like you? Question: how did your brain learn human speech?

Ouch, you really got me there you pretentious POS.

Your usual "enlightened" response. I can just tell you burned some braincells on that one.

Says the idiot who fulfills every rightwing caricature expectation of the left.

Better be careful: you wouldn't want to run out...

LOL ----------- is gettin' angree.

#383 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-24 02:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1


-----.

#384 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-24 03:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What? Either I don't get this or it's as bad as I think and it supports my idea that you're a ------..."

Better look long and hard at that first choice there, Isaac Newton. Reading is fundamental, so you had better try to apply yourself.

And here our mental giant loses his ability to use italics correctly. Let me fix that for you:

"What's embarrassing is your post history."

Much better, right? As for my post history, it is extremely embarrassing.... mostly for morons such as yourself. Why here's you on another thread linking to a site that contradicts your whole point! Hilarious!

"You're a far bigger tool than any other poster on this site"

I'd respond that you are a tool yourself but that wouldn't be fair... by definition, you see, a tool is useful. Rules you right out.

"with your constant feeefeeeeeee --- ---------."

Hard to find such a rare mix of homophobic bigotry and downright incoherence as is found in this post. You should archive it for posterity as an enduring example of the depths to which someone can sink.

"Ouch, you really got me there you pretentious POS."

Pretentious? That is a pretty big word for you. Careful you don't pull something, Clyde.

"Says the idiot who fulfills every rightwing caricature expectation of the left."

You must be envious: I feel like you personally are probably more used to failing to meet expectations than fulfilling them.

#385 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 03:15 AM | Reply

-----.

#384 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-08-24 03:02 AM | FLAG:

Just replace all your posts with this. Same idea, in a fraction of the space.

#386 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-24 03:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#379; I guess I got you since you chose to deflect instead of answering the question. Insults are not gendered, so how do the other insults gender the word? Illogical.

Just answer the question or admit you are a hothead that blew your own misunderstand out of proportion.

What the hell happened to this thread and why isn't a Buddhist allowed to opine on one's state of retardation?

#387 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-24 10:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Gold digging is an insult. Do you dispute that?"

It's not a slur against all women. Do you dispute that?

#388 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-24 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Strive for not posting without read a thread first, eh?
#352 | POSTED BY JPW

Reading 300+ post threads are not my cup of tea. My last post was worth the risk.

#389 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-24 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This thread's interesting conversation has been most enjoyable.

I found myself laughing several times.

It reminded of Kimgsman "I'm a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. So, hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon, madam."

Still laughing.

Thank you.

My anniversary passed Rcade.

#390 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-08-24 01:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Reading 300+ post threads are not my cup of tea. My last post was worth the risk.

#389 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

That's what I figured.

Sometimes you gamble and find out it is in fact a shart.

#391 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-24 01:58 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort