House Passes Laken Riley Act – 170 America-Hating Democrats Vote Against Bill!!

[LumRaiderFan]

2 minutes ago, Englebert said:

More lies, and accusing me of lies. How long will you embarrass yourself.

Obama weaponized the IRS against Conservatives. He spied on Fox News (and AP) reporters. Are you denying these facts? I'm sure he probably had something to do with Hillary's "Russia, Russia, Russia" dossier. No telling what else was done. Biden has a new attack almost daily. You even admitted it. So try to disprove these. And for bonus points, start listing those Trump political persecutions being done to Democrats. Maybe there are some. Otherwise, let's see if you must consider calling yourself a liar.

Trump did not run on "Lock her up". It was a saying at his rallies that caught on. He did not go after her because it was against form and fashion to go after your political foes. Do you remember when Conservative had character? I wish he would have had her investigated. She would be rotting in prison right now...where she belongs.

Trump fought against the spending bills given to him. He even shut down the government because of it. Do you remember that? Can't you get anything right?

Again, you are horrible at revising history to fit your TDS filled criteria. You have proven that you cannot analyze other people. It is laughable when you try. And yes, you should feel physically hurt when you are this stupid...if you had character.

What lies will you reply with now? Maybe get Big Girl to help you because you are doing a terrible job on your own.

 

You gotta remember, you're talking to a guy that can't vote for Trump (the third time, anyway) because of his high moral standards, while admitting in the past that he worshipped the ground that Bill Clinton walked on and thought he was the best president of all times.

Good stuff.

[SmashMouth]

I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand:

• Trump took classified docs
• Biden took classified docs
• Everybody takes classified docs

 

• Trump is a liar
• Biden is a liar
• Most, if not all, politicians are liars

Stop trying to defend the infraction du jour and just be honest about it. 

I will choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to voting for the POTUS. Trump gets my vote over Biden today, tomorrow & twice on Sunday (wait, that's voter fraud).

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand:

• Trump took classified docs
• Biden took classified docs
• Everybody takes classified docs

 

• Trump is a liar
• Biden is a liar
• Most, if not all, politicians are liars

Stop trying to defend the infraction du jour and just be honest about it. 

I will choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to voting for the POTUS. Trump gets my vote over Biden today, tomorrow & twice on Sunday (wait, that's voter fraud).

Does something need explaining? 

Who is defending the "infraction du jour"?

The latest posts where discussing revisionist history, and then this pops up. I feel like I'm missing something.

[LumRaiderFan]

18 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand:

• Trump took classified docs
• Biden took classified docs
• Everybody takes classified docs

 

• Trump is a liar
• Biden is a liar
• Most, if not all, politicians are liars

Stop trying to defend the infraction du jour and just be honest about it. 

I will choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to voting for the POTUS. Trump gets my vote over Biden today, tomorrow & twice on Sunday (wait, that's voter fraud).

Don’t see anyone defending Trump, simply pointing out the exact opposite reaction (from government and media) when him and Biden have done the same thing, along with every other President.

[SmashMouth]

Just now, Englebert said:

Does something need explaining? 

Who is defending the "infraction du jour"?

The latest posts where discussing revisionist history, and then this pops up. I feel like I'm missing something.

It was more than just about the last few posts, or even this topic specifically. All I read on here is "Well, what about...(insert what ever deflection you want to come up with)". If you're missing something, then you are no different than most - me included. We become so polarized to "our guy" that we can't see the forest for the trees.

@Reagan posts sensationalized articles about "what the left did this time" and @Big girl, God bless her, can't seem to make sense of what day it is. Both are extreme and the truth falls somewhere in the middle. But there isn't any middle ground thee days. There isn't any give and take these days. Between social media, mainstream media (which includes CNN, Fox, the Big 3, MSNBC, etc.), we are willingly being polarized. It's for a reason, both political & social. We are slaves to their thoughts. Most people can't admit that Trump is a narcissistic crook. I can. I'm still going to vote for him...because, in my opinion, it beats the alternative. 

Quit calling each other names and pointing the finger and try to have a discussion that's meaningful.

[Englebert]

26 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

It was more than just about the last few posts, or even this topic specifically. All I read on here is "Well, what about...(insert what ever deflection you want to come up with)". If you're missing something, then you are no different than most - me included. We become so polarized to "our guy" that we can't see the forest for the trees.

@Reagan posts sensationalized articles about "what the left did this time" and @Big girl, God bless her, can't seem to make sense of what day it is. Both are extreme and the truth falls somewhere in the middle. But there isn't any middle ground thee days. There isn't any give and take these days. Between social media, mainstream media (which includes CNN, Fox, the Big 3, MSNBC, etc.), we are willingly being polarized. It's for a reason, both political & social. We are slaves to their thoughts. Most people can't admit that Trump is a narcissistic crook. I can. I'm still going to vote for him...because, in my opinion, it beats the alternative. 

Quit calling each other names and pointing the finger and try to have a discussion that's meaningful.

Wow, we were supposed to get all of that out of your post. No wonder I was missing something.

It seems you went on a broad rant about a whole topic that was not being discussed. The discussion was meaningful. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend that. The name calling was a cheerful bonus. I'm sure you don't mind being lied about, as long as it is done in a gentlemanly manner.

I'm still trying to comprehend how this post was relevant in the wake of the current discussion. You're "both sides do it so shut up" doesn't seem to fit in here.

[SmashMouth]

37 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm still trying to comprehend how this post was relevant in the wake of the current discussion. You're "both sides do it so shut up" doesn't seem to fit in here.

It was just as relevant as the "current discussion" being discussed under the topic "House Passes Laken Riley Act". If "both sides do it so shut up" is all you can glean from what I posted, then I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, because that was definitely not the accentuated point. Read the last sentence of the post: "Quit calling each other names and pointing the finger and try to have a discussion that's meaningful."

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Don’t see anyone defending Trump, simply pointing out the exact opposite reaction (from government and media) when him and Biden have done the same thing, along with every other President.

It's not the same thing. And even if it was (which it's not), then why are we asking for Trump to get off just because Biden did? Why aren't we asking why both should have to face consequences? Why do we keep putting our politicians on a pedestal & above the law?

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, SmashMouth said:

It was just as relevant as the "current discussion" being discussed under the topic "House Passes Laken Riley Act". If "both sides do it so shut up" is all you can glean from what I posted, then I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, because that was definitely not the accentuated point. Read the last sentence of the post: "Quit calling each other names and pointing the finger and try to have a discussion that's meaningful."

Wow. The hilarity came out of nowhere. I'll leave it at that.

[SmashMouth]

2 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Wow. The hilarity came out of nowhere. I'll leave it at that.

That's what I would've said if I wasn't able to come up with anything better too...

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

That's what I would've said if I wasn't able to come up with anything better too...

I was being nice. But I wouldn't expect you to understand.

The hilarity came from you posting way off the current topic, then had the nerve to point to the name of the topic...in which you were off topic. Funny!

You tried to play morality police in the same post that you disparaged two other posters. Hilarious.

You went on a rant trying to explain a post that had no similarity to your explanation. Freaking hilarious.

Carry on.

[SmashMouth]

Just now, Englebert said:

I was being nice. But I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Look, it's the talking down crap like the above that I don't get. And believe me, I've done my fair share of it too. Using condescending language is a favorite tool of someone who wants to appear more intelligent or sophisticated or wiser than the one they are facing in a discussion or argument.

You're a smart guy, one that in premise I usually agree with. But my disagreeing with something or pointing something out doesn't make you any more or less smart than me. You don't have to try to belittle me to make you better.

[Englebert]

Just now, SmashMouth said:

Look, it's the talking down crap like the above that I don't get. And believe me, I've done my fair share of it too. Using condescending language is a favorite tool of someone who wants to appear more intelligent or sophisticated or wiser than the one they are facing in a discussion or argument.

You're a smart guy, one that in premise I usually agree with. But my disagreeing with something or pointing something out doesn't make you any more or less smart than me. You don't have to try to belittle me to make you better.

I just followed your lead. You did the dragging.

[SmashMouth]

2 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I just followed your lead. You did the dragging.

Dragging? I don't think so.

[SmashMouth]

24 minutes ago, Englebert said:

You tried to play morality police in the same post that you disparaged two other posters.

And for the record, I like @Reagan. But he posts some of the most off the wall stuff. Facts. I'm not disparaging him though. As far as @Big girl is concerned, yeah I probably hit below the belt on that one. I always tried to be fair and nice with her, but her thieving "our" money and bragging about it really gets to me. 

[Englebert]

9 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Dragging? I don't think so.

Whatever makes you feel special.

Your first sentence in your first post on this topic today was "I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand". Can you get more condescending than that?

Later in the post, you wrote "Stop trying to defend the infraction du jour and just be honest about it." So you are implying someone, both, all are lying, being dishonest, and you are playing morality police by calling out said posters. This was your first post. I ignored those quips and tried to let you explain your post. And your response was just nonsensical. So yes, you did the dragging.

Are you sure you want to continue dragging this down to the gutter? (I spelled it out for you.)

[SmashMouth]

15 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Whatever makes you feel special.

Your first sentence in your first post on this topic today was "I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand". Can you get more condescending than that?

Later in the post, you wrote "Stop trying to defend the infraction du jour and just be honest about it." So you are implying someone, both, all are lying, being dishonest, and you are playing morality police by calling out said posters. This was your first post. I ignored those quips and tried to let you explain your post. And your response was just nonsensical. So yes, you did the dragging.

Are you sure you want to continue dragging this down to the gutter? (I spelled it out for you.)

You're being sensitive. "I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand" was simply meant to include both left and right points of view (everyone, not just conservatives or liberals). Now that I read it, possibly it was condescending. Not my intent. 

The second point about the infraction du jour is meant to say just what I implied. All of us will defend "our" side through deflection and finger pointing. This is all my opinion, but it's what I see. 

You: "Are you sure you want to continue dragging this down to the gutter? (I spelled it out for you.)" 

Me: "You don't have to try to belittle me to make you better."

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, SmashMouth said:

Your being sensitive. "I will do my best to explain so everyone can understand" was simply meant to include both left and right points of view (everyone, not just conservatives or liberals). Now that I read it, possibly it was condescending. Not my intent. 

The second point about the infraction du jour is meant to say just what I implied. All of us will defend "our" side through deflection and finger pointing. This is all my opinion, but it's what I see. 

You: "Are you sure you want to continue dragging this down to the gutter? (I spelled it out for you.)" 

Me: "You don't have to try to belittle me to make you better."

Again, following your lead. You're welcome.

Unless you have something else to say other than trying to defend your insensitive statements, this conversation has run it's course. But naturally, I will be on the edge of my seat waiting for your next reply. 

I'm actually just waiting for CardinalBacker to rejoin. You were a surprise distraction.

[SmashMouth]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Again, following your lead. You're welcome.

Unless you have something else to say other than trying to defend your insensitive statements, this conversation has run it's course. But naturally, I will be on the edge of my seat waiting for your next reply. 

I'm actually just waiting for CardinalBacker to rejoin. You were a surprise distraction.

I'm glad we all exist for your enjoyment. Happy to oblige.

[SmashMouth]

Antagonistic Narcissism 

Antagonistic narcissism is defined by a sense of competitiveness, arrogance, and rivalry. While all people with narcissistic traits can be overly concerned with how they appear to others, antagonistic narcissists are particularly concerned with coming out “on top."

Someone with antagonistic narcissism may try to exploit others to get ahead. They may put others down in an attempt to gain the upper hand or appear dominant.

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, SmashMouth said:

Antagonistic Narcissism 

Antagonistic narcissism is defined by a sense of competitiveness, arrogance, and rivalry. While all people with narcissistic traits can be overly concerned with how they appear to others, antagonistic narcissists are particularly concerned with coming out “on top."

Someone with antagonistic narcissism may try to exploit others to get ahead. They may put others down in an attempt to gain the upper hand or appear dominant.

Are you exhibiting "intern's syndrome"? Passive-Aggressive is just too obvious. Projection is right on the nose.

You project arrogance. You get called out on it. So you resort to textbook self-defense mechanisms. You are too funny. But now just boring. Either up your game or bow out.

[SmashMouth]

8 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Are you exhibiting "intern's syndrome"? Passive-Aggressive is just too obvious. Projection is right on the nose.

You project arrogance. You get called out on it. So you resort to textbook self-defense mechanisms. You are too funny. But now just boring. Either up your game or bow out.

Someone with antagonistic narcissism may try to exploit others to get ahead. They may put others down in an attempt to gain the upper hand or appear dominant.

[Englebert]

7 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Someone with antagonistic narcissism may try to exploit others to get ahead. They may put others down in an attempt to gain the upper hand or appear dominant.

Does this describe you...to a tee? After all, you started with a condescending post. I just followed.

I figured you would realize that sentiment from my previous post. But apparenty, whooosh.

This is now so boring. It's the middle of the day but you are putting all the readers to sleep. Where is CardinalBacker to liven this back up?

[Reagan]

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Does this describe you...to a tee? After all, you started with a condescending post. I just followed.

I figured you would realize that sentiment from my previous post. But apparenty, whooosh.

This is now so boring. It's the middle of the day but you are putting all the readers to sleep. Where is CardinalBacker to liven this back up?

I think we got Cardinalbacker seeing the light!  😏

[SmashMouth]

22 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Does this describe you...to a tee? After all, you started with a condescending post. I just followed.

I figured you would realize that sentiment from my previous post. But apparenty, whooosh.

This is now so boring. It's the middle of the day but you are putting all the readers to sleep. Where is CardinalBacker to liven this back up?

"Psychologists suggest trying to find compassion for that antagonistic narcissist . After all, through their negative behavior, they are shielding their threatened ego with their insistence on always being right."

I'm sorry @Englebert

I will try to be more compassionate.