Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
I guess I must be.
So could you please explain it to me? I am asking genuinely. Do you feel the drinking age is is too high? Do you feel the voting age is too low? I gave you my opinion please share yours.
Why do you respond to him in a civil manner when he repeatedly shits on you?
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Wow, now David is misspelling Spanish words! He's branching out!
Voting and drinking alcohol are NOT comparable. The former cannot pose a danger to anyone. The latter can. That's why one must be older to drink than to vote.
Duh!
The spelling is correct. --- "Comprehende" is a word with Latin roots and multiple interpretations across languages. Primarily, it acts as a conjugation of the Latin verb comprehendere (grasp/seize/understand), or the Spanish/Portuguese verb comprender (meaning to understand, grasp, or include/cover). It also appears in Latin as a first/third-person singular present subjunctive, meaning "to catch/seize/grasp firmly"
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Wow, now David is misspelling Spanish words! He's branching out!
Voting and drinking alcohol are NOT comparable. The former cannot pose a danger to anyone. The latter can. That's why one must be older to drink than to vote.
Duh!
Voting can't pose a danger? Um after reflecting on the results of certain elections you may want to reevaluate that statement.
Not saying that there aren't differences between the two but to say that voting can't pose a danger is demonstrably false.
But I still agree that we shouldn't raise the voting age.
Originally posted by: David Miller
The spelling is correct. --- "Comprehende" is a word with Latin roots and multiple interpretations across languages. Primarily, it acts as a conjugation of the Latin verb comprehendere (grasp/seize/understand), or the Spanish/Portuguese verb comprender (meaning to understand, grasp, or include/cover). It also appears in Latin as a first/third-person singular present subjunctive, meaning "to catch/seize/grasp firmly"
You were using and misspelling a Spanish word, weasel. Nobody speaks Latin, except in church.
Comprende?
😛😛😛😛😛
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
You were using and misspelling a Spanish word, weasel. Nobody speaks Latin, except in church.
Comprende?
😛😛😛😛😛
And you are wrong again.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Voting can't pose a danger? Um after reflecting on the results of certain elections you may want to reevaluate that statement.
Not saying that there aren't differences between the two but to say that voting can't pose a danger is demonstrably false.
But I still agree that we shouldn't raise the voting age.
Oh, I was waiting for someone like Millerscum to say something like that, but you? I'm disappointed.
If a citizen casts a lawful vote, that, by definition, absolutely, positively, is not and cannot be a danger. A candidate can be a danger, but if the people vote for him, so be it.
The outcome of an election is what the people want. Can it be a mistake, error, bad decision? Oh, sure, definitely. But can we attach a "wisdom" rider to enfranchisement? NO! idiots can and should be able to vote. I would fiercely advocate for the right of Millerpig, stupid Tom, and Boilerboob to vote, even though they're appallingly stupid and evil.
I think that if we truly believe in our democracy, we have to accept all of the outcomes it produces. In 2024, the people wanted Trump. That was obviously a horrible mistake, but it was a democratic result. If we consider one vote or another to be a "danger," it's a baby step from there to restricting or outright preventing "dangerous" votes.
The Nazis did that. The Soviets did that. MAGA wants to do that. I don't.
I do favor the sterilization and/or ritual disembowelment of all Republicans, but not their disenfranchisement, even though they definitely ARE a danger.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Why do you respond to him in a civil manner when he repeatedly shits on you?
Because it's kinda the only way I know how to interact with people in a public setting. My instincts tend to demand I interact with others civily or not at all.
I could be nasty and insulting but I don't know how interested people are in reading that.
If in a disagreement with someone I prefer to just act as I do and let them act as they do. The people viewing the interaction can make their own determination on who is being more reasonable.
I don't feel I gain anything from being nasty. It just makes me more stressed out.
Originally posted by: David Miller
And you are wrong again.
😛😛😛😛😛😛
Weasel!
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Because it's kinda the only way I know how to interact with people in a public setting. My instincts tend to demand I interact with others civily or not at all.
I could be nasty and insulting but I don't know how interested people are in reading that.
If in a disagreement with someone I prefer to just act as I do and let them act as they do. The people viewing the interaction can make their own determination on who is being more reasonable.
I don't feel I gain anything from being nasty. It just makes me more stressed out.
But do you think you should respond civilly to someone who calls you "obtuse" for expressing mild doubt about what he says? You were nothing but polite to him, and he shat on you.
I think that answering discourtesy with courtesy may be honorable and all that, but doing so just encourages more of the same. Just like the reporter Trump called "Piggy" should have responded by stabbing him in the eye with a nail file. Not punishing assholes, and tolerating their behavior, just encourages and condones more assholery.
You can pay your taxes by mail...but Trump and the MAGA pussies dont want you to vote that way.
I came up with that one without having to search Facebook for some neandrathal with a Confederate Flag mounted on his truck.
