Do SJWs suffer from mental illnesses?

Okay.

You joke but it's true and contrary to the agenda being pushed, it's Trumpers and Right-minded types who use feelings over facts more than the Liberals. eg Proof Obama is a secret Muslim? "It's what I feel." Proof that Climate Change is fake? "It's what I feel."

Seems like you're trying to have it both ways, no? If the DNC leaks were true despite the obvious questionable source, why are the claims about Trump/Comey dinner not believable?

What I said wasn't based on feelings; it is based on Trump's previous actions. He's crazy obsessive about the people around him being loyal to him, so it's no real stretch of the imagination that he would demand loyalty from Comey, the guy investigating him/his people.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay.

I'm at least glad you didn't try to deny it. Let me be clear, when I say that I don't mean you specifically are one of these people who post a lot, I'm merely saying it's good you didn't deny there are others here who do it 👆

You joke but it's true and contrary to the agenda being pushed, it's Trumpers and Right-minded types who use feelings over facts more than the Liberals. eg Proof Obama is a secret Muslim? "It's what I feel." Proof that Climate Change is fake? "It's what I feel."

Lol yeah I disagree. I think liberals do it more, but okay.

Seems like you're trying to have it both ways, no? If the DNC leaks were true despite the obvious questionable source, why are the claims about Trump/Comey dinner not believable?

Lol dude that is my point. There can be zero whining about taking the DNC emails as true unless folks are gonna whine about other stories, yet they do not seem to.

What I said wasn't based on feelings; it is based on Trump's previous actions. He's crazy obsessive about the people around him being loyal to him, so it's no real stretch of the imagination that he would demand loyalty from Comey, the guy investigating him/his people.

You are saying you feel he will behave this way based on the past. Just like I feel, based on what we have seen from Hollywood liberals in the past, that if we see one whining about the state of the country it's probably a reference to Trump. If you think it's far fetched to think that then okay.

Also again you talk about believable stuff based on past behavior. So would you agree the behavior shown in the DNC emails wasn't exactly hard to believe? Or is it that for that instance it was hard to believe, but for Trump it is not?

If you need to spin it that way to feel like a win, no problem, but my "okay" was neutral to move on from the non-issue you're trying to make an issue of

Well no, I've given examples to support my claim. Wide spread ones too boot.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Trump saying something in-line with his past actions is believable. Cum cake blood orgies, not so much.

Your problem here is that you're lumping large masses of people together and blanketing. Where the actions of the few do not necessarily translate to the masses.

See above. Trump demanding loyalty is absolutely believable, as he's the 'I demand loyalty' guy.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you need to spin it that way to feel like a win, no problem, but my "okay" was neutral to move on from the non-issue you're trying to make an issue of

Lol well see the problem here is the same people who talk shit in that way also spend a whole lot of time posting here. So for you to disagree would be willfully ignoring that. I was genuinely hoping you'd try not to do that even if they are your pals.

Well no, I've given examples to support my claim. Wide spread ones too boot.

Dude, there is no "well no" here. You gave an opinion and cited two examples. If you truly need me to go dig out a mere 2 examples of liberals putting feelings over facts then IMO, you're ignorant. No offense, that just seems like ignorance to me. So I'd ask what is the point of this discussion? If you ignore shit from one side, why bother? I flat out refuse to believe you're actually ignorant to the behavior of the other side, so again: I just don't see the point. Is it trolling, like when you asked for examples of liberal hypocrisy?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Trump saying something in-line with his past actions is believable. Cum cake blood orgies, not so much.

Your problem here is that you're lumping large masses of people together and blanketing. Where the actions of the few do not necessarily translate to the masses.

See above. Trump demanding loyalty is absolutely believable, as he's the 'I demand loyalty' guy.

I like how you focused on the cum cake blood orgies. Right, let us get specific: the shady behavior exposed in the emails. A surprise, to you? Those are what people truly focused on. Most weren't saying "damn those orgies, f*ck these people".

If you don't understand what a "being neutral' comment means, I don't know what else to tell, anyhow I'm moving on from this

Supporting claims is just that. I'd also venture that your examples would be silly; like something about 'college kid said this', no offense. When mine aren't, especially climate change denial.

You act like I'm the one that personally posted those obviously ridiculous fake emails, it wasn't me. Which brings up another point, if you agree those were faked to smear Clinton, why do you believe the rest without proof?

Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't understand what a "being neutral' comment means, I don't know what else to tell, anyhow I'm moving on from this

Cool, not sure why you suddenly decide to get neutral only after bringing it up with me first, but okay moving on.

Supporting claims is just that. I'd also venture that your examples would be silly; like something about 'college kid said this', no offense. When mine aren't, especially climate change denial.

Your two claims didn't show your opinion was fact, which is the vibe I got with the "well no" response. Just to clear stuff up: it was not a fact in the sense of showing without a doubt conservatives do this more.

Moving on, so now when I say liberals also put feelings over facts....it only matters WHICH ones do that? Liberals at college campuses aren't good enough, but I'm not even saying that is all there is.

Let me ask you how far this goes: do you truly think you would have to dig into only college kids to find examples of liberals putting feelings over facts? Or that you'd have to look very far?

Hell it's not just college kids btw. Any liberal calling something like the wall racist is putting feelings over facts. A guy recently on Tucker put feelings over facts involving Mexico recently. Before you go all "must have been a dumb college kid" it was Jorge Ramos.

You act like I'm the one that personally posted those obviously ridiculous fake emails, it wasn't me. Which brings up another point, if you agree those were faked to smear Clinton, why do you believe the rest without proof?

I never said the other stuff was faked. I'm saying there is nothing nefarious/shady about the shit you focused on. I don't care if these folk wanna go guzzle cum shakes after hours for all I care. The meat and potatoes of the leaks were not orgy shit.

I ask again: the shady stuff we saw....was it hard to believe they would behave that way?

Are you actually saying that the people who truly believe Obama was a secret Muslim set on bringing about Sharia law all along and that climate change is a hoax are using facts and not feelings for their beliefs? LoLz.

Seems I was right and the examples you were originally going to give to support your claim was indeed "something, something, college kids'.

Why are you asking me? It's not my responsibility to support your claims.

BTW, Jorge Ramos totally made Tucker look like a "cuck".

Wait, so you believe the cum cake and blood orgies are true? Be very clear here.

Sorry, I don't take a wikileaks dump made for the sole purpose of smearing a single side at face value, I need proof considering those facts. Especially when it has some truly ridiculous claims/stories.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you actually saying that the people who truly believe Obama was a secret Muslim set on bringing about Sharia law all along and that climate change is a hoax are using facts and not feelings for their beliefs? LoLz.

Um, what? I'm saying the two examples you gave do not make "conservatives do it more" a fact. Yes, they did indeed do those two things you mentioned.

Seems I was right and the examples you were originally going to give to support your claim was indeed "something, something, college kids'.

Why are you asking me? It's not my responsibility to support your claims.

BTW, Jorge Ramos totally made Tucker look like a "cuck".

Again, difference of opinions, since I don't think he did. He said about putting u the wall "we aren't at war with Mexico". Tucker asks if the guy locks the doors in his house, then when he says yes he asks if he is at war with his neighbors. The response is along the lines of "no I'm civil with my neighbors". So wanting a barrier to control who comes in? "We aint' at war", but you can lock your doors and control who comes into your home, but a country? Nope.

You ask why I'm asking you things, to see how aware you are about liberal behavior. I'm trying to find out if you're ignoring stuff on purpose or just plain unaware.

Wait, so you believe the cum cake and blood orgies are true? Be very clear here.

Sorry, I don't take a wikileaks dump made for the sole purpose of smearing a single side at face value, I need proof considering those facts. Especially when he have ridiculous claims/stories.

I like how I've asked you the same question multiple times, you have ignored it, and yet demand me answer questions.

But hey I'll do what you can't: I believe the emails. I don't see the point in providing real emails and then throwing in some fake stuff about cum orgies. People lost their jobs over the wikileaks emails, there were real consequences for this. Nobody EVER came out and said a single email isn't true. I know you'll come and say some of the emails sound crazy, and yes they do. I know about how these folk behave politically, I have no clue what crazy shit they get up to.

Now if you want to try to use that to discredit me or my opinions ago ahead, but this shit has been out for a while, I've never seen any of those involved set the record straight. Why not? Especially when some we definitely know are true, so you'd think they'd wanna out the fake stuff.

Now answer my question: the shady stuff in the emails, a surprise?

What I'm saying is that climate change denial is far more spread than some college kid 'something, something feelings' on whatever campus. This isn't even bringing up the fact that one is potentially very dangerous while the other is typically inconsequential.

I have no problem with you believing Tucker didn't get 'cucked' again. I expect it from you when it comes to Tucker.

I answered your question.

LoL, dude. But I'm not surprised, I'm also 100% sure if those same emails about cum cakes and blood orgies were about Trump and people connected with Trump, you'd claim (and rightfully so) they were ridiculous and demand proof.

So why is it totally believable that Clinton engages in cum cake eating blood orgies which is a far stretch of the imagination, but it's ridiculous to believe Trump's into urine play when that's a thing with some people?

I don't believe either without proof, as I've said before. Even when we have the Russian agent who leaked the #pissgate files ending up murdered as a weird coincidence.

Originally posted by Robtard
What I'm saying is that climate change denial is far more spread than some college kid 'something, something feelings' on whatever campus. This isn't even bringing up the fact that one is potentially very dangerous while the other is typically inconsequential.

But just climate change comes with some asterisks needed, because what does "denial" mean? You see in a sane word I wouldn't need to ask that. Thing is, in this backwards country? You're a climate denier if you question ANY of the science. That is different than someone saying "this is 100% not a thing". A recent Dilbert was funny about this, let me see if I can find it.

I have no problem with you believing Tucker didn't get 'cucked' again. I expect it from you when it comes to Tucker.

I understand and to be fair I expected it from you as well when comes to Tucker as well.

LoL, dude. But I'm not surprised, I'm also 100% sure if those same emails about cum cakes and blood orgies were about Trump and people connected with Trump, you'd claim (and rightfully so) they were ridiculous and demand proof.

If people connected to Trump had been fired over it and some had been shown to be 100% true? I'd actually be more on board.

So why is it totally believable that Clinton engages in cum cake eating blood orgies which is a far stretch of the imagination, but it's ridiculous to believe Trump's into urine play when that's a thing with some people?

Did Trump deny the urine play? Yes. Did the dossier come from someone who was apparently revealed to be getting paid by intelligence agencies? Sorry, I can't answer, because they refused to answer if he was.

When I see firings as a result of this, when I see shit turning out to be true like getting questions in advance? Yep, I want these folk to flat out call the lies lies. I want to hear Hilary Clinton say all these are fake. Or Podesta.

I don't believe either without proof, as I've said before. Even when we have the Russian agent who leaked the #pissgate files ending up murdered as a weird coincidence.

Lol so let us venture in the realm of Putin and assume the guy legit will murder you for stuff like this. Wouldn't putting out some BS dossier that makes Trump look really bad...earn the ire of Putin just as much as leaking something real? Since you're flat out lying about not just Trump, but the Russian government as well.

I'm not defending any of it, I'm just saying dead guy=crossed someone, but you can cross someone by releasing fake shit too.

Here, this is how some folk react to questioning anything about it:

Yes it is just a cartoon, but I think it captures the way some behave.

Also, is there some core truth in there though? Like I've heard shit about failed models, scientists ignoring data that doesn't conform to their notions of climate change, and climate change prediction models not only sometimes being wrong, but their wrongness apparently not being something very very rare.

Any of that shit true?

Originally posted by Surtur
But just climate change comes with some asterisks needed, because what does "denial" mean? You see in a sane word I wouldn't need to ask that. Thing is, in this backwards country? You're a climate denier if you question ANY of the science. That is different than someone saying "this is 100% not a thing". A recent Dilbert was funny about this, let me see if I can find it.

I understand and to be fair I expected it from you as well when comes to Tucker as well.

If people connected to Trump had been fired over it and some had been shown to be 100% true? I'd actually be more on board.

Did Trump deny the urine play? Yes. Did the dossier come from someone who was apparently revealed to be getting paid by intelligence agencies? Sorry, I can't answer, because they refused to answer if he was.

When I see firings as a result of this, when I see shit turning out to be true like getting questions in advance? Yep, I want these folk to flat out call the lies lies. I want to hear Hilary Clinton say all these are fake. Or Podesta.

Lol so let us venture in the realm of Putin and assume the guy legit will murder you for stuff like this. Wouldn't putting out some BS dossier that makes Trump look really bad...earn the ire of Putin just as much as leaking something real? Since you're flat out lying about not just Trump, but the Russian government as well.

I'm not defending any of it, I'm just saying dead guy=crossed someone, but you can cross someone by releasing fake shit too.

Did you just "no you!" me? <3

I was ready to believe you here, but then you your last part where you use different standards of proof for Trump and Clinton ruined it.

"Didn't deny" is not proof, especially ridiculous claims. The burden of proof is on the accuser. But Trump also denied that Trump U was a scam. It was, people got scammed.

There are far too many people who have spoken ill of Putin and then ended up "accidentally" shot in the back of the head or "accidentally" falling off of buildings for this to be believable. Even Trump agreed Putin is a "killer", then he threw the US under the bus in defending him via equalization tactics. Lol. Remember that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough, I'm talking about the 'it's a hoax' people. I feel your "you're a denier if you question any.." to be a an exaggeration, while sure, I'm sure that happens with some loons, it's not at the front.

Not at the front? Bill Nye whined about CNN bringing on an actual scientist who didn't agree with him on this subject. He whined...while he was on CNN with the guy.

Oh btw, you want more "feelings over facts" go check out the Sex Junk video with Nye.

Did you just "no you!" me? <3

Yes, because it's true. I didn't expect you to embrace it. Since it's not a college kid getting made a fool of, anyways. If it was I'm sure you'd dismiss being made to look foolish as it just being some dumb college kid.

I was ready to believe you here, but then you your last part where you use different standards of proof for Trump and Clinton ruined it.

"Didn't deny" is not proof, especially ridiculous claims. The burden of proof is on the accuser. But Trump also denied that Trump U was a scam. It was, people got scammed.

Didn't deny it isn't 100% proof, but it does not help. Especially after the election, after all the whining about what cost Hilary the emails...sorry, I just flat out do not believe they would have sat back and said nothing if the emails were fake. Hell, just going out of their way to prove the REALLY crazy shit would lend credence to it all being fake. Hilary or Podesta never said "none of this stuff is true". Speaks volumes for me consider the stuff they have opened their mouths up about. Speaks volumes the woman who can't shut the f*ck up about why she lost has been quiet about wikileaks.

There are far too many people who have spoken ill of Putin and then ended up "accidentally" shot in the back of the head or "accidentally" falling off of buildings for this to be believable. Even Trump agreed Putin is a "killer", then he threw the US under the bus in defending him via equalization tactics. Lol. Remember that.

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't exist, what I am saying is if they behave that way then isn't it logical to assume leaking a lie could get you killed just as much as leaking the truth? Cuz see, dipshits here...some of them, took it as fact.

Anyways, I'm out for the night.

I still find it funny that people think Bill Nye is a REAL SCIENTIST!

That is funny.

Most do, yes.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]I still find it funny that people think Bill Nye is a REAL SCIENTIST!

That is funny. [/B]

If you employ empiricism, you are a scientist. A piece of paper from an educational institution does not make you a scientist. Edit - ...Bill Nye may not be a scientist...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]I still find it funny that people think Bill Nye is a REAL SCIENTIST!

That is funny. [/B]

Bill Nye's degree is in mechanical engineering, so he is an engineer. He also took an Astronomy class under Carl Sagan whilst at Cornell. So, yeah, he pretty much qualifies as a Scientist.

Nye is indeed a mechanical engineer. He also did this, which should officially cost him any science cred:

YouTube video

So here\s an interesting article:

Federal investigator confirms WikiLeaks link to murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

Of course I doubt it's true, he just cites an "anonymous source" as his claims, and those just plain shouldn't be taken seriously.

Lol..

University of Michigan Students ‘Marginalized’ by ‘Masculine’ Dark Wood Paneling

Oh that pesky dark wooden paneling.

“[M]inority students felt marginalized by quiet, imposing masculine paneling” students claimed, "

Well hey the good news is they haven't put in an official request and the school doesn't seem to take it seriously. Though I have these wooden doors by my closet right now eyeing me and yeah I feel it...there is a darkness there, like this impending doom. Like the giant hand of the patriarchy is going to swoop down any minute and grab me.

Anyways gee, I wonder why enrollment is down:

As Mizzou Enrollment Plummets, Landlords Offer $1,000 Gift Cards, Big Rent Reductions to Lure Students

$1000 gift cards? Sweet! Not desperate at all.