Greg Abbott drops lawsuit against Trump U. Get's $35K donation from Trump

Boy I hope that then the next time we are discussing about a group of people being offended by something you won't be popping into the thread complaining about PC culture.

 

Who ever thought of Paul Ryan as responsible?

There's not anything it that is responsible (or sane) about his signature achievement, which is pretty much garden variety Supplysider dreck dressed up as a "thoughtful budget proposal" (spoiler alert: the rich guys do really well).

I honestly find some of the true crazies to be less harmful than the closet crazies. The veneer of respectability that Ryan gets as opposed to a foaming-at-the-mouth type like Louie ohmert doesn't make his plans any less terrible. Make no mistake, "responsible" Republicans in congress or whatever have the kinds of plans that are anything but, and the consequences are severe.

See the last administration for an example of this. And hint - things have not gotten any better in the GOP since.

 

I don't know.

I for one find it appalling that the state as masculine and healthy as Texas elected a feeble cripple as governor.

 

While I completely disagree with Ryan's positions I at least have the opinion he seems a reasonable person, as opposed to Cruz (and I won't even get started on Trump). I think a challenge we have in politics today is a belief that "the other side" is completely wrong and as such there is an unwillingness to work together on problems.

That said, Ryan's endorsement is making me re-think that...

 

Not making fun of a person in a wheelchair is just common decency which is something you know little about.

You guys talk about deflecting which is all this thread is. The Democratic candidate is under FBI investigation and a report just came out from the IG that makes her out to be a total liar.

 

Making fun of a public figure that is an ******* is completely within fair bounds. The fact is that he IS a cripple in a wheelchair and he IS a sanctimonious *******.

 

I use the proper Ayn Rand term for people in wheelchairs - "subnormal"

 

He called him "wheels" which is highly offensive. I don't know where abb got his chair but it is a huge pile of ****.



Rusty, dinged up, different color axle nut? Weak


murdered out wheels, chrome plated, not al jacked up. Dude is the governor of Texas, he should show some pride.

 

I was going to start a thread about Ryan, but work kept getting in the way. My thought is this though. He's endorsing Trump in tandem with preparing an agenda for House Republicans to execute on should Trump become president (similar, it seems to me, to Gingrich's Contract on America in approach if not content). I think this could actually be a good thing should we suffer the misfortune of Trump becoming president. Maybe Ryan becomes the main driver of Republican policy initiatives instead of Trump. I probably won't like those initiatives, but coming from Ryan I can at least expect them to be rational and respectable even as I disagree with them.

As for the endorsement, it comes so belatedly and grudgingly that I can't see how it bumps Trump. It helps only in its contribution to the wider story of party unity. And, if Ryan gains control of the legislative initiative from Trump in exchange for his endorsement, that could be worth it.

As for the parallel conversation on Abbott: mock the dude's obvious mental impairments, not his physical ones.

 

So you're saying that its okay to use derogatory terms to describe someone as long as they have differing political opinions than you. How tolerant of you.

I was wondering the same thing. Of course I've noticed that nobody in this forum has addressed those questions. They'd rather resort to name-calling

 

Sure thing white knight.

So any thread not about Clinton's emails is deflecting? Mkay.

 

she admitted to making mistakes.

u don't think so ?

 

The thought that Ryan would be a moderating force *if* Trump were to be elected President sounds at least somewhat comforting, but the reality is *if* he were to be elected I think it much more likely that he would have been seen to have won with a mandate, and thus he would have way more power than a unpopular Speaker of the House.

 

Except what we are talking about here is people hurling slurs.

I run a 501c3 Autism org. and I deal with families of across the spectrum, whether it be by diagnosis, personal wealth, age or race, I treat everyone the same. I don't always agree with everything that someone in my community feels offended them. For instance the Autism family who got tossed from the plane over hot food not being available, I didn't disagree with what the airlines did.

What I don't agree with and any decent person should as well is this hurling these types of hurtful slurs at any community.

It's ironic that Libs, who laughably claim that they are head and shoulders more tolerant that Republicans, make weak ass excuses or just ignore this deplorable conduct.

 

Once again, you're wrong. It's not fair bounds to use offensive terms aimed at a Special Needs Person just because you disagree with them.

This has to be an act, no way that you are this cowardly, obnoxious and insensitive in real life. No way you'd go to a Wheelchair Basketball or Softball tournament and act like this.

 

If someone is a complete ******* and a public figure, a physical disability is fair game. No I would not say anything negative or necessarily positive if I met someone in a wheelchair or at a basketball game. The physical disability doesn't make them any better or worse.

Now someone that is a public figure and is a mean ******* attempting to limit or hinder the right of millions of other people? Being a lame cripple is fair game.

 

Even then I would still rather attack his attempt hinder rights rather than attack his disability. It just irks people the wrong way. You can attack a wheelchair bound person quite hard as long it is attacks based on merits.

Y,a obviously we don't want a world where if someone is a war criminal, and the magically become wheelchair bound, their sins are all forgiven and no one is able to attack his ideology/rhetoric/past crimes.

 

Also "Special Needs Person" in all caps in more PC crap championed by liberals. His legs are lame, he cannot walk. It is not his fault but that is the truth. Using some catch all phrase is patronizing. Use the specific term so people know what the issue is and can be more considerate of it. Special needs can be mental r****dation, autism, being blind or MS or not having the ability to walk. It is bordering on insulting to lump all the disabilities into a single homogenized term. Further they are disabilities, calling them "special needs" doesn't change that.

As for Abbott, I don't care if he is "Special Needs" or not. He is insensitive and lacks empathy and accordingly is an ******* that happens to also lack the ability to walk.

 

I hold nothing against Abbott because he is crippled, I dislike him because he is a terrible person... who just happens to not be able to walk.

 

Spoken like a true *******.... You wouldn't call them a cripple either or maybe your sorry ass would, who knows.

From Websters

noun

1.
a. Offensive. a term used to refer to a person who is partially or totally unable to use one or more limbs.
b.an animal that is similarly disabled; a lame animal.
c. Offensive. a person who is disabled or impaired in any way:
a mental cripple.