https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1856904182973776383?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
I think that people are finally coming around to understanding that if you want to see the results of liberal/DFL policies and governance, that you just need to look at the places where they've had total control for a few decades. If those places don't look good, then why vote for that result for the whole country?
8 comments:
Wow! Never heard the guy speak before. If he ain't "gay", he's as "gay" as can be without being so!
Anyway, he speaks the obvious and by doing so validates what so many have seen as being obvious. That's a good thing.
I'm not sure what his sexual preference has to do with his take, which is excellent, but sure.
It's like the left isn't aware that we have examples of their governance throughout the country. Especially egregious when the cities in questions are in deep blue states.
It has nothing to do with anything regarding his point. It's just that I had never heard him speak before. I don't even know what his preferences are. It was just an observation.
As to that point, yeah. It's totally consistent to see these various examples of what comes of voting Democrat. And while their "fixes" don't fix anything, but only exacerbates the situation, they'll complain about that which will improve the situation because of the collateral pain which has to accompany improvement...such as crowded jails and prisons.
It seems like a bizarre "point" to lead with. As if his perceived sexual preference has any bearing on his intelligence or his conclusions.
Yes, as to the point, which kind of is the point. The DFL has graciously provided us with these shining examples of what happens when they have control, and we would be foolish to conclude that their results wouldn't scale up.
You make too much of it by referring to it as "bizarre". Lighten up. I don't regard Douglas Murray as unintelligent because he's gay. I was simply struck by Klein's effeminate manner of speaking, never having heard him speak before. Jeez! Why don't you just post a list of things you insist visitors must keep to themselves. A lot of wasted keystrokes over a simple observation.
If you say so. Your perception of his sexuality, based on his voice, has zero relevance to what he said or this post. Yet that's what you led with. I'm giving it the same level of importance you did.
I'm not insisting you keep anything to your self. However, what you write is then fair game for criticism. It's almost like you want to be able to say anything you want, yet be immune from criticism. You are quick to criticize others for all sorts of things, maybe you could not be so sensitive when others criticize you.
It's not so much even criticism, as just noting how strange and irrelevant your perceptions of someone's sexuality are when discussing the content of his video.
But, as always, you do you.
"If you say so. Your perception of his sexuality, based on his voice, has zero relevance to what he said or this post. Yet that's what you led with. I'm giving it the same level of importance you did."
No. You most definitely are NOT giving it the same importance I was, as I gave it no importance at all by merely mentioning how "gay" he sounds when he speaks.
I don't expect my comments to be free from criticism. I'm merely criticizing your believing it was worth your effort to do so. It was a throw-away line at best. Thus your response is just as much fair game, and in this case far more so. I never suggested his affectation mattered to his point. Indeed, it's pretty freakin' obvious in my original comment that I was not associating it in any way to his point. Again...JEEZ! Lighten the hell up! I have no idea what is "sexuality" is. l commented on how he sounds. End of story. You needed to extend the story and that's weird.
But, as always, you do you.
You gave it importance by making that the first thing you said. This notion that all gays have a "sound" when they speak is ridiculous. That the first thing you took from his (which you acknowledge) good points was that he sounded "gay" to you, is strange. That you continue to make this some sort of major issue is even weirder.
That you've repeatedly gotten this worked up over criticism of things you've said, seems to undermine your claim about how you respond to criticism. Strangely, I've never said or gone to these extremes to protest criticism. I assume that some of my takes will be criticized, hell y'all are criticizing the hell out of me for suggesting that we not violate the 1st amendment. The difference is that I'm responding to your criticism without bitching about being criticized.
I have no need to extend this, I'm merely responding to your attempts to justify your assumptions about the dude. If you want to stop, stop. If you're going to bitch about what I am doing, then I'm going to respond. I made my point in the first comment I wrote in the thread. everything after that is responding to your bitching about being criticized.
Post a Comment