Teacher Slams Military; We Don't Indoctrinate Your Children??

[Spare_change]

I'll do my very, very best to try to keep up ... you pick the subject, and I'll show you just how wrong you are. (Make sure you use widdle words ... you don't want to lose me.)

Sure. I wouldn't normally go off-topic, but you're the OP, and you're asking for it, so it's okay.

Subject: Your side's willingness to believe dopey conspiracy theories that violate basic common sense, and then, after each conspiracy theory craters, they run back to the same propaganda masters for a new conspiracy theory.

Example. The one about the FBI deleting texts to cover up a plot against Trump.

That conspiracy theory has cratered hard, being the texts were recovered, and showed nothing suspicious going on.

It was a stupid conspiracy theory on multiple levels, but most conservatives here fell for it.
--- Assumed texts were actually deleted.
--- Assumed Democrats did the deleting.
--- Assumed FBI was incapable of deleting a backup, and too stupid to understand they had to delete the backup
--- Assumed FBI agents would discuss a top secret treasonous plot by texting.

Why can't your side use common sense when evaluating the validity of conspiracy theories? And why doesn't the failure of the last conspiracy theory clue them in that they shouldn't believe the next conspiracy theory?

Now, I would suggest that your post is a prime example of the lunacy of the left.

There is a difference between a discussion and a belief. For example, I believe you're an intelligent person, but, based on this post, we're going to have to discuss it.

Can you show me just who believes this conspiracy theory you so blithely assign to all conservatives? Do you not agree that those "circumstances" raise questions that needed to be answered?

But, the real problem isn't that "conservatives have created a conspiracy theory ..." . Rather, the problem is that you take questions being asked, and automatically build this massive theory you delightedly assign to all conservatives. You make it seem that having the temerity to ask questions presumes that they already know the answer.

By the way .... how's that "Russian collusion" conspiracy working for you liberals? Or, how about that "... Trump stole the election.." conspiracy theory? Or, maybe the one that " ... the only reason Trump ran for office is so he could further his business interests ..." theory?

But ... let's go back to the original ... we can sit here and throw stones over the fence at each other. That wasn't your original claim. Your original claim was that "... [conservatives are] so incapable of talking about actual issues, or debating any liberal honestly...."

Pick and issue, and let's debate it. The wall? Tax cuts? (Don't go there --- liberals were SO wrong, it's indefensible), DACA, healthcare? Pick one --- let me show you how wrong you are. Hell, when I get done, you'll probably want to buy a MAGA hat for your puppy.

 

[Unkotare]

California teacher slams military members as 'lowest of the low' in classroom rant caught on video

A video in which a Southern California high school teacher is heard slamming members of the military as “the frickin’ lowest of the low” in a classroom rant to students has gone viral.

El Rancho High history teacher Gregory Salcido -- who also serves as an elected Pico Rivera city councilman and was once mayor -- even goes so far as to refer to those who are in the military overseas as failed students who had no choice but to serve, "Fox & Friends" reported Sunday.

“Think about the people you know who are over there,” Salcido is heard saying. “Your freakin' stupid Uncle Louie or whatever. They're dumb s - - - s. They're not high-level bankers. They're not academic people. They're not intellectual people."

“They’re the freakin’ lowest of our low.”

He is also heard questioning why military recruiters were allowed to visit the school.

“We don’t allow pimps to come into the school,” he says.

Yeah...an idiot...but I will tell you...the people who I hear bash vets the most are con-servatives with the "can't you get a real job?" schtick.

liar

 

[ScienceRocks]

The fucking Military does far more to indoctrinate.

Our educational system educates and teaches one to be civilized.

 

[ScienceRocks]

California teacher slams military members as 'lowest of the low' in classroom rant caught on video

A video in which a Southern California high school teacher is heard slamming members of the military as “the frickin’ lowest of the low” in a classroom rant to students has gone viral.

El Rancho High history teacher Gregory Salcido -- who also serves as an elected Pico Rivera city councilman and was once mayor -- even goes so far as to refer to those who are in the military overseas as failed students who had no choice but to serve, "Fox & Friends" reported Sunday.

“Think about the people you know who are over there,” Salcido is heard saying. “Your freakin' stupid Uncle Louie or whatever. They're dumb s - - - s. They're not high-level bankers. They're not academic people. They're not intellectual people."

“They’re the freakin’ lowest of our low.”

He is also heard questioning why military recruiters were allowed to visit the school.

“We don’t allow pimps to come into the school,” he says.

Yeah...an idiot...but I will tell you...the people who I hear bash vets the most are con-servatives with the "can't you get a real job?" schtick.

All while giving all the wealth to the very elite at the very top. FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT CONSERVATIVES.

 

[mamooth]

Now, I would suggest that your post is a prime example of the lunacy of the left.

I would suggest that's a quasi-religious belief of yours, being how you assert it with no evidence and expect me to just believe. That goes with my original point, based on your OP, that conservatives are emotion-based creatures.

There is a difference between a discussion and a belief.

In your case, it seems to be that if you don't like the subject being discussed, you label a discussion as a belief so you can avoid discussing it.

Can you show me just who believes this conspiracy theory you so blithely assign to all conservatives

How about you do a search on "Strzok". Dozens of threads. And that's just this board.

Do you not agree that those "circumstances" raise questions that needed to be answered

That's what I just asked. Given the complete absurdity of the conspiracy theory and all the other current conspiracy theories about the FBI, why do most conservatives here fall for them?

But, the real problem isn't that "conservatives have created a conspiracy theory ..." . Rather, the problem is that you take questions being asked, and automatically build this massive theory you delightedly assign to all conservatives. You make it seem that having the temerity to ask questions presumes that they already know the answer.

No, my point is accurate, and the problem is that you're denying evidence about conservatives that you can't respond to.

By the way .... how's that "Russian collusion" conspiracy working for you liberals?

If you think that's a conspiracy, there's literally no point in speaking do you, given how detached from reality such a position is.

Or, how about that "... Trump stole the election.." conspiracy theory?

Mostly your fantasy.

Or, maybe the one that " ... the only reason Trump ran for office is so he could further his business interests ..." theory?

An opinion, not a conspiracy theory, one backed up by a good amount of evidence. In fact, that can be our next topic of discussion, if you're still around.

Pick and issue, and let's debate it.

I'm not sure that's worthwhile, given how I've taken your measure here and found you wanting. But I'll give you another chance.

Let's talk about the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Trump is very clearly violating it. He's openly peddling his business interests to foreigners, who are paying big money in return for access to Trump.

Such behavior is immoral, corrupt and illegal, a brazen violation of the Constitution, yet almost all conservatives give it a free pass. That indicates to me how most conservatives care more about naked political power than the Constitution. Being we liberals have never done such a thing, liberals have the intellectual and moral high ground here.

 

[Spare_change]

The fucking Military does far more to indoctrinate.

Our educational system educates and teaches one to be civilized.

Yeah, how's that working for you??

 

[Spare_change]

Now, I would suggest that your post is a prime example of the lunacy of the left.

I would suggest that's a quasi-religious belief of yours, being how you assert it with no evidence and expect me to just believe. That goes with my original point, based on your OP, that conservatives are emotion-based creatures.

There is a difference between a discussion and a belief.

In your case, it seems to be that if you don't like the subject being discussed, you label a discussion as a belief so you can avoid discussing it.

Can you show me just who believes this conspiracy theory you so blithely assign to all conservatives

How about you do a search on "Strzok". Dozens of threads. And that's just this board.

Do you not agree that those "circumstances" raise questions that needed to be answered

That's what I just asked. Given the complete absurdity of the conspiracy theory and all the other current conspiracy theories about the FBI, why do most conservatives here fall for them?

But, the real problem isn't that "conservatives have created a conspiracy theory ..." . Rather, the problem is that you take questions being asked, and automatically build this massive theory you delightedly assign to all conservatives. You make it seem that having the temerity to ask questions presumes that they already know the answer.

No, my point is accurate, and the problem is that you're denying evidence about conservatives that you can't respond to.

By the way .... how's that "Russian collusion" conspiracy working for you liberals?

If you think that's a conspiracy, there's literally no point in speaking do you, given how detached from reality such a position is.

Or, how about that "... Trump stole the election.." conspiracy theory?

Mostly your fantasy.

Or, maybe the one that " ... the only reason Trump ran for office is so he could further his business interests ..." theory?

An opinion, not a conspiracy theory, one backed up by a good amount of evidence. In fact, that can be our next topic of discussion, if you're still around.

Pick and issue, and let's debate it.

I'm not sure that's worthwhile, given how I've taken your measure here and found you wanting. But I'll give you another chance.

Let's talk about the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Trump is very clearly violating it. He's openly peddling his business interests to foreigners, who are paying big money in return for access to Trump.

Such behavior is immoral, corrupt and illegal, a brazen violation of the Constitution, yet almost all conservatives give it a free pass. That indicates to me how most conservatives care more about naked political power than the Constitution. Being we liberals have never done such a thing, liberals have the intellectual and moral high ground here.

I knew you couldn't do it .... you couldn't raise an issue for valid discussion. It just isn't in your DNA.

Let's talk about the emoluments clause. You say Trump is "very clearly" violating it. Of course, you offer no proof, no examples - just merely, your assertion.

But ... because I find you humorous ... let's go ahead and discuss it. Based on your comments, I'm going to have to assume that you, simply, don't know what the hell you're talking about. So, we have to start at the beginning.

The "emoluments clause" - “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Clearly, you're not concerned about him accepting presents (all presidents do), office, or title, from any King, Prince or Foreign State. Your whole paranoia is based on "emoluments" - defined as, "... a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office..."

Somehow, you want to contort this to mean that, if a Chinese diplomat stays in a Trump hotel in Dallas, this is an emolument to the President, and that he is profiting from his office. Seriously?

Donald Trump owns shares in his hotels - this is true. When a Chinese diplomat stays in a Trump hotel, the hotel profits, and by extension, the President profits. That seems to be the crux of your argument, even though you actually haven't posited your argument - just thrown around accusations and paranoia.

But, let me ask you a question - FDR owned stock in Hilton hotels, and stock in railroads. Does that mean he, also, is guilty of violating the emolument clause? Clinton owns stock in airlines - was that a violation?

Oh wait!!! You say that Clinton put those stocks in trust? That makes a difference. Really? Being in trust does not change the value of those stocks, and doesn't change the ownership. The trust only changes who may exercise those stocks. So, Clinton profited by the increase in airline stock - it was X when he put it in trust, and X+Y when he took it out. Does that mean he violated the emolument clause?

But - another question. Donald Trump owns stock in Procter & Gamble - you know them. They make Charmin bathroom tissue, among other things. Does that mean that every time Vladimir Putin wipes his ass, Trump is violating the emoluments clause? P&G also makes Always adult diapers for women. So, every time PM May has an "accident", Trump is violating the emoluments clause?

See how ridiculous your argument is? You haven't bothered to provide a single, verifiable, instance of Trump actually profiting AS A RESULT of his presidency.

Now - you can disagree - and you will look damn silly doing it. But, you must admit - conservatives CAN have an intelligent discussion about issues. The trick is for them trying to find somebody intelligent to discuss them with.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh great. Another thread on that one guy. How many does this make? 8 or 10?

It's a staple tactic of USMB conservatives, being that they're so incapable of talking about actual issues, or debating any liberal honestly.

Basically, their masters feed them a story about one stupid supposed liberal. Then they all run to their computers in unison, rage-weeping due the hysterical state they're in, and scream "THIS SHOWS HOW ALL YOU LIBTARDZ ALL SUCK!".

Needless to say, we liberals could flood the board with hundreds of threads if we used the same tactic of pointing to one conservative moron. But, since we can talk about actual issues, we don't have to stoop to that level.

You libtards do in fact flood the board with hundreds of threads, mostly all bullshit, conjecture and talking points about Trump so don’t give us any bullshit high road speeches.

 

[mamooth]

I knew you couldn't do it .... you couldn't raise an issue for valid discussion. It just isn't in your DNA.

As one of my points is that you whine about how any topic that makes you uncomfortable isn't a valid topic, I appreciate the way you keep proving it for me.

Somehow, you want to contort this to mean that, if a Chinese diplomat stays in a Trump hotel in Dallas, this is an emolument to the President, and that he is profiting from his office. Seriously?

Yep. But it's just the Constitution, so what do you care?

Oh wait!!! You say that Clinton put those stocks in trust? That makes a difference. Really?

Just to any honest person.

I was testing you there, to see just how much corruption and Constitution-raping you'd justify in the name of TheParty. Your answer was effectively "an infinite amount".

Thus, my work here is done.

Now - you can disagree - and you will look damn silly doing it. But, you must admit - conservatives CAN have an intelligent discussion about issues.

I never said otherwise. It's just rare to see. We certainly didn't see it here.

So, what emotional thread will you make tomorrow? Come on, TheParty must have given you a story about how some random liberal somewhere did something stupid, for you to breathlessly repeat.

 

[Spare_change]

I knew you couldn't do it .... you couldn't raise an issue for valid discussion. It just isn't in your DNA.

As one of my points is that you whine about how any topic that makes you uncomfortable isn't a valid topic, I appreciate the way you keep proving it for me.

Somehow, you want to contort this to mean that, if a Chinese diplomat stays in a Trump hotel in Dallas, this is an emolument to the President, and that he is profiting from his office. Seriously?

Yep. But it's just the Constitution, so what do you care?

Oh wait!!! You say that Clinton put those stocks in trust? That makes a difference. Really?

Just to any honest person.

I was testing you there, to see just how much corruption and Constitution-raping you'd justify in the name of TheParty. Your answer was effectively "an infinite amount".

Thus, my work here is done.

Now - you can disagree - and you will look damn silly doing it. But, you must admit - conservatives CAN have an intelligent discussion about issues.

I never said otherwise. It's just rare to see. We certainly didn't see it here.

So, what emotional thread will you make tomorrow? Come on, TheParty must have given you a story about how some random liberal somewhere did something stupid, for you to breathlessly repeat.

Run and hide, little boy .... run and hide.

You did, in fact, say that " ... conservatives, being that they're so incapable of talking about actual issues, or debating any liberal honestly.... " Now, you deny that you said it. Tsk! Tsk!

I haven't hidden from your "issues" - in fact, quite to the contrary, when challenged, you run and hide (either thru deflection or thru changing the subject). I directly addressed your "issue" - showed you just how childishly ridiculous your attack was, and you don't respond?

Maybe the problem isn't with conservatives, but with liberals - unable to address a subject unemotionally, factually, and with honesty. You have certainly proven yourself unable to do so.

See how, in this very post, you ignore the challenge to a rational discussion, and rever to name calling and personal attacks? (Trash the Constitution? Really? Simply because I disagree with your tortured attempt to twist it to bolster your pathetic little rant?)

So, tell us --- why, or how, has Trump violated the Emoluments clause? Give us an example. Prove me wrong. I always welcome the opportunity to be shown the light.