11/19/17

2 self-righteous assholes fighting. This is over trump taking credit for freeing Lavar's son and not getting the credit he believes he deserves. Go!

grabs popcorn

Comments (93)

11/19/17

Trump vs LaVar Ball is the battle of intellectual heavyweights that our country deserves. Seriously, this whole debacle is retarded, but we are now a nation of fat lazy entitled people, whiny millennials who think their art history major should lead to a lucrative job, social media obsessed people with no ability to read and understand complex arguments, etc. Just as Trump vs Hillary is what we as a nation deserved, this is what we get. Things will only get worse unless the American people get their shit together. Meanwhile, China is making valuable investments in AI, machine learning, genetics, and a host of other industries of the future, are working their ass off, and setting up the stage for a Chinese century. The U.S. is in the midst of systemic decline unless drastic action is taken.

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

Financial Modeling
Best Response
11/20/17

Where are you from that shoplifters get labelled as thugs? Just curious. Next you'll be telling me Winona Ryder is a thug, def frightened of her and her hardened criminal background, she should just join the Aryan brother(sister?)hood and be done with it.

p.s. this whole thing is hilarious, it's almost like fate gave us this moment, two massive trolls going to Twitter battle - one is the POTUS, we're in the twilight zone

11/20/17

From dictionary.com:

Thug
noun
1.
a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

90% sure this refers to violent robbery, such as a stick-up. Not stealing some underwear from wal-mart. Jesus man don't be obtuse. Winona Ryder, Thug. Lmao at this dumbass snowflake bullshit. Lol @ commiting a crime = "thug". I'm sure every person with a DUI is a thug. This is comical but keep trying to justify. The word Thug is used to identify violent criminals period. There is nothing violent about shoplifting. Would anyone call Bernie Madoff a thug? The cognitive dissonance here is amazing.

11/20/17

Ok, so It's cognitive dissonance when I post a factual definition from a dictionary, but also cognitive dissonance when I disagree with a bullshit study you post in other threads. The intellectual dishonesty is staggering. My point is that you are trying to find a racially motivated undertone in his comment when there is none. All of these people are criminals and suck. I don't really care which noun you use to describe them. If you want to call me a snowflake fine, but then you can't be butthurt that he used the term thug to describe these kids.

Edit: The funny thing is I completely agree that Trump is being childish here, literally the only thing I'm arguing is the semantics of a single word in the post above and it's drawing a ton of ire. SMH.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

1.) Please present your counter-arguments in their respective threads. Idk why you and others bring up other arguments in threads that have nothing to do with said arguments, another example of snowflake emotional behavior.
2.) I explained how you misused your own definition down below.

11/20/17

You didn't 'explain', you applied your interpretation, which I refuted again below.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

I mean do I really have to get into basic English? If someone says I would like a large dog, cat, or chicken the word large applies to the dog, cat or chicken. You somehow tried to highlight the robber part of your definition in order to label Ball as a thug but forgot that cruel or vicious applies to all three categories (ruffian, robber, murderer).

11/20/17

I didn't forget, I had assumed that most people would agree that the intentional act of stealing was inherently viscious and cruel, as are most crimes. I guess that's my bad for assuming that everyone viewed theft that way.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/21/17

Yea man, I don't think most people view shoplifting as vicious and cruel. Stupid criminal behavior, yea. Thug behavior? Nah. BTW, if you're going to come at my post then expect "ire" in the form of reasoned response and logic. If you can't deal with that then don't post.

11/20/17

To #1, you do this all the time, so get off your high horse. It's relevant because you bemoan people for doing things that you have done over and over again in other threads and quite frankly it gets tiring. Then when someone crys fowl, you call them a snowflake even though you are literally the most #Triggered person on this entire site. Honestly, I promise I'm going to stop commenting in any thread you're in because it's entirely counterproductive.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

"you do this all the time" - Sorry I don't know what "this" you're referring to.

11/27/17

The funny part is these kids see themselves as thugs, yet we have people white knighting for them to say they aren't thugs.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

11/27/17

Lol, ik you're a troll but I'll play along. What evidence do you have that he sees himself as a thug?

11/27/17

The kids twitter.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

11/27/17

I don't have Twitter, context would be appreciated.

11/27/17

No, it just says robber.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

11/20/17
BobTheBaker:

Where are you from that shoplifters get labelled as thugs? Just curious. Next you'll be telling me Winona Ryder is a thug, def frightened of her and her hardened criminal background, she should just join the Aryan brother(sister?)hood and be done with it.

p.s. this whole thing is hilarious, it's almost like fate gave us this moment, two massive trolls going to Twitter battle - one is the POTUS, we're in the twilight zone

He committed a crime. That makes him a thug.

11/20/17

Pretty little white girls shoplift all the time. Would they be thugs too?

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a reputable academic institution"
-Most job applications

11/20/17

Yes, they would. It's literally in the definition. Take it up with Webster's if you don't like the definition.

EDIT: Other thugs that come to mind: Bernie Madoff and Harvey Weinstein.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

The definition states a cruel or vicious robber, which means robber is not itself synonymous with thug. You haven't correctly applied the definition

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

11/20/17

Bernie Madoff is not a thug bro, he is simply a criminal. Weinstein is a thug because he appears to have engaged in violence to assist with his criminal behavior. Simply put, if violence isn't involved (shoplifting, DUI, embezzlement etc.) you aren't a thug. Let's stop misusing the word for convenience.

11/20/17

I just went to webster.com and other sites tosearched the definition of Thug

Webster: a brutal ruffian or assassin :gangster, tough

Google: a violent person, especially a criminal.

Dictionary.com: a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

The common thread there is violence, maybe you misunderstand or simply are not very well-versed in the English language a thug is a cruel or vicious ruffian, a cruel or vicious robber, or a cruel or vicious murderer. In other words, the cruel or vicious part applies to ruffians, robbers, or thugs. There is nothing vicious about shoplifting. The fact that this is up for arguments displays what lengths people will go to to justify their bullshit.

11/20/17

I don't understand how taking property/something from someone else without their consent or isn't cruel or vicious, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

I suppose you could argue that it causes pain to wal-mart to steal socks from them thus it would be cruel thus someone who steals socks from wal-mart is a thug but... that is definitely a stretch.

11/20/17

No it's not. See this is the point that I'm trying to make. Morality is not relative. Stealing is wrong, whether it's from a billionaire or from a homeless guy on the street. A crime shouldn't be given more or less weight because of someone's gender or race.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

What the hell are you talking about?This isn't a discussion on whether shop-lifting is wrong or right. This is a discussion regarding whether shoplifting makes you a thug. Gender or race have nothing to do with it. BTW, morality IS relative. Idk if you've never taken a basic ethics course but that's why we look at robin hood as a hero and Madoff as a criminal. They both stole bro. One stole from the corrupt govt. and rich to give to the poor and the other stole in order to enrich himself. Basic ethics will tell you robin hood's thievery was much less immoral than Madoff's. Now apply this to stealing a starving person's last meal versus stealing a sandwich from Bill Gates. "Morality is not relative" - lol.

p.s. You've mentioned race 2x now in reference to my arguments. Where did I refer to race bro? Perhaps that's your own paranoia/ personal motivation to engage in this debate? Speaks volumes.

11/20/17

This entire paragraph is ridiculous. You're using a straw man of someone starving vs. stealing a bilionaire's meal. If you knew it was the person's last meal, it wouldn't be theft, it would be at best negligence. This is a discussion on when the term 'thug' is applicable in a situation of theft. I am arguing that if you steal knowingly, without an underlying NEED to do so to survive (like if someone was starving) you are a thug, because it is premeditated, and not out of necessity. This is exactly how people justify this kind of shit, and it's not right. I even posted in another thread about when it's 'OK' to lie on your resume, and admitted that while it might be OK to do so or get away with it, it's still immoral to do it. Lying is lying bro, stealing is stealing. The fact that you're trying to justify it based on situation ethics is a little disturbing, but good for you.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't say the person stealing from the guy who is starving vs stealing from Bill Gates needed to do so to survive. My argument is that whether or not they steal to survive, stealing food from someone who is starving versus stealing food from Bill Gates are two different situations as far as morality goes, even though the individual stole in both cases. Brandishing a gun to rob someone is thug behavior, pocketing a wallet from a louis vuitton store is not. Both wrong, but one causes far more trauma and emotional distress to the aggrieved party, which is what makes it both vicious and cruel and qualifies it as thug behavior. I think most would agree with this interpretation of the definition of what a thug is, feel free to disagree.

EDIT: "you are a thug, because it is premeditated, and not out of necessity"

premeditation and/ or the crime being committed out of necessity, or otherwise, has nothing to do with whether said criminal behavior justifies the "thug" label or not - ironic considering you accuse me of engaging in straw-man arguments in that same post.

11/20/17

The race thing was my mistake, I'm traveling and I've been responding on my phone and I read another poster's comment about the 'pretty little white girls' and thought that was you. Since you mentioned the Aryan brotherhood, geographic location and Winona Ryder all in the original post, I thought that was a follow on.

This argument comes down to our interpretation of the word thug. I think that shoplifters are thugs since 9 times out of 10 they intended to take someone's property unlawfully and without any right to do so, and in most instances there is some type of malicious intent, whether big or small. Apparently you disagree, in which case, go for it.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

I disagree because the dictionary almost always implies or outright states VIOLENT (implied, threatened, or actually carried out) criminal behavior as the threshold for thuggery. In the case of shoplifting there is no violence involved and the aggrieved parties suffer minimal to no distress. Given that reality I don't see how it is justified to label LiAngelo Ball as a thug. The word implies far more sinister behavior than he exhibited in this China situation. Your machinations on lawfulness, his right to do so, and intent have nothing to do with the definition of the word thug. I think this discussion has run it's course so I'll bow out here.

11/20/17

I disagree with the 'minimal to no distress'. There's a reason people at convenience stores and gas stations carry guns behind the counter; or why at outlet stores the clothing has those 'anti-theft' tags on them - because shoplifting is a big problem. Otherwise, they would let people (armed or not) walk out with the items with no remark/incident. I am also bowing out here.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

Yes, and the majority of the business of gangsters outside of the violent crimes was extortion, money laundering and theft.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17

extortion generally includes a threat of violence, money laundering doesn't make you a thug, gangsters generally threaten violence to facilitate their thievery....

11/20/17
iBankedUp:

Pretty little white girls shoplift all the time. Would they be thugs too?

There you go again, with your race baiting. Yes, those girls would be thugs. I have called white, latinos, and Asian people thugs as well.

11/20/17

Shoplifting is not a violent crime.
(The very difference between shoplifting (theft in a more generic sense) and robbery, for example, is exactly the existence of violence (or lack thereof).
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/cr...)
Morality is not a black or white, objective concept.

Bernie Madoff is not a thug.

11/21/17

I never said shoplifting was a violent crime. I said that it was done with malicious/cruel intent. Again, fine, if we want to draw the line of robbery at using a gun or not then so be it, but there are many instances of 'robbery' where no violence was used (one list below).

I didn't mean for this to devolve into a sub-conversation of morality, but I guess I've got to defend my position on this. Normally, people I've encountered who say morality is not black or white usually have had the need to make justifications in the past. Keeping with the example earlier of Walmart, let's go down that route. Someone steals from the Evil Wal-Mart, which is a massive company. Maybe, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but maybe it's happened 4 times in the past month to one of the employees on shift, or maybe the manager is dealing with some other issues and it reflects poorly on his performance and one of those people get fired. My point is when you start saying 'morality is not objective' you start justifying things without necessarily having all the facts. That's why moral absolutes exist. You shouldn't steal being one of them. You might think that you have the 'moral high ground' from instance by instance, but the point is you shouldn't do it. Period. Obviously, if someone steals millions of dollars, it is a different level of crime than stealing peanuts from a convenience store, but that is where the LEGAL system comes in. From a moral perspective, both are theft.

https://www.ranker.com/list/bank-robbers-who-didnt...

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/21/17

Morality is relative. Absolute morality in ethical philosophy is simply not subscribed to anymore and its unbelievable you continue to push your narrative regardless. Killing is immoral. Killing is killing. Yet there is a different degree of morality between a soldier killing to defend his country versus an individual murdering a bunch of children. That's simply the reality. One could very much argue there is zero malicious/ cruel intent in shoplifting. Wanting free stuff isn't malicious nor cruel in and of itself. I'm sorry bro, it's sad this is still a conversation. It's one thing to say LiAngelo Ball is an idiot and a delinquent. To call him a thug is simply a step too far. No one uses that word that way. Under your definition, people who stupidly get behind the wheel and drive while drunk are thugs. No one is trying to justify shoplifting, I understand it is convenient to frame the argument as "is shoplifting justified" because the actual argument "does shoplifting make you a thug" is one where you have to twist yourself into a logical pretzel to justify your position o but please cease with the strawman. This seriously isn't a difficult concept. Many of those bank robberies where committed without threat of violence so yea, not thug behavior. I'm sorry this has been so difficult for you.

I find it hilarious that snowflakes are managing to MS every single one of my posts without reasonable response. It's what I've come to expect from WSO re: the level of debate and heightened emotions that come with counterarguments.

11/22/17

I'm not twisting into a pretzel. You keep trying to frame my argument incorrectly, so that might be your issue with understanding or comprehending my entire line of thinking, or why you continue to patronizingly call in to question my command of the English language. I am saying that if one can make the mental leap to shoplift, one is in some way cruel, because, at BEST, you are ignoring the moral implications of your actions, and making a conscious choice to ignore the consequences/results it impacts on others. At worst, you are knowingly causing harm to someone else. It might not be physical harm, but it is harmful. Are there literally 1,000+ other nouns that are probably more appropriate for these kids? Yes. But I don't think you can just rule out thug as 'preposterous'. That is ALL I'm saying. If you disagree, and judging by the comments on here some people do and some people don't, then more power to you.

EDIT: forgot to mention, killing and murder are two different things.... Again, going back to intent, but I guess I'm not 'allowed' to use intent in my argument for some reason.

Also, on an unrelated note...... You started commenting on this thread with an emotionally charged statement, then get pissed when people MS you/react emotionally. Who's the snowflake here?

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/22/17

I agree, there are 1000 words that better describe Ball's behavior in China than "thug". Again, thug refers to a violent criminal. Your attempt to shift American vernacular for your purpose is laughable. There was nothing "emotionally charged" about my initial response. I just called out obvious bs. You argue against yourself and don't even know it. You claim to subscribe to absolute morality then discuss killing and murder based on intent. My man, that is relative morality. On an absolute basis taking a life is taking a life and, according to the views you seem to promote in this thread, that is ABSOLUTELY immoral, regardless of intent.

11/22/17

Yes, because "Lmao at this dumbass snowflake bullshit." is not emotional at all. The denial here is staggering.

If you want to talk about arguing against oneself, refer to our back and forth on intent. You are the king of twisting words man, and again, I still don't think you understand my argument fully. Again, killing by itself, in self defense or on a field of battle for example, is not immoral. Pre-meditated killing, or murder, is wrong in all instances. The fact that I'm able to draw a line in the sand on something that easily proves the point about absolutes.
You and all the other relativists can try to obfuscate and cloud the issues as much as you want, but here's the first definition that pops up about morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". Well, what do you know, it looks like they only say right/wrong and good/bad, and not varying degrees of grey? Hmmm, isn't that strange?

You seem to think that incorrectly lumping different events together and judging them within the same purview proves your point, even if there's an asymmetry in each situation that renders them incomparable. This is why you will never understand my view, and this is why your Robin Hood equivalency to 'stealing/shoplifting', for example, is absolutely laughable to the point where I didn't even mention it previously. Robin Hood and his crew were not thieves as we think of them today, even though his moniker in that shitty movie was 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves'. The main reason for this is that there was a prior transgression that was being rectified (this would be similar to restitution in today's system). Here's the definition of stealing keeping with my original theme of dictionary trolling: "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it". So, I'm pretty sure reclaiming improperly used tax dollars is within legal right. The convenient arguing point that is left out at this juncture of the story is that they didn't have a separate legal/judiciary system to enforce laws - again making it a poor comparison. The difference between us is that you re-frame moral definitions to fit multiple situations, and I re-frame situations to fit into their respective moral definitions. Your hypocrisy at every turn is laughable to me, as I am obviously to you. I also find it laughable and disturbing that anyone that has a different set of views than you is immediately written off as crazy or obtuse, when I just laid out several arguments that you have been unable to outright refute. If you don't subscribe to moral absolutes that is completely fine with me.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/25/17

There's nothing to outright refute and this "debate" has gotten completely out of hand. Thug, here in America, is used to describe a violent criminal, period. You've done an absolutely horrible job of defending moral absolutism because it's ridiculous from a philosophical standpoint. The fact I continue to go back and forth with you speaks to my susceptibility to being trolled, my bad. Again, under absolute morality either an action is intrinsically immoral or it is intrinsically moral. There is no in between. You're applying relative morality to your arguments trying to support absolute morality and have done this multiple times. Intent, premeditation, field of battle etc. is you contextualizing killing which is relative morality, I mean this should be obvious. Under absolute morality, if you consider killing immoral it matters not whether it is a soldier defending his country or a serial killer murdering children. Period. If you can address this and defend your subscription to moral absolutism under this context then feel free. This whole conversation had been a total joke.

"Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act."

The moment you add context you've delved into relative morality, and you've repeatedly done this. Then when I say you're arguing against your own damn argument you act dumbfounded.

11/27/17

It has been a total joke because I've just been able to explain why the actions are not comparable, then you keep trying to say they are comparable and that my argument is ridiculous...... It should be obvious that the robin hood example and actual stealing are not the same..... Just as killing in self-defense and on the battlefield is not the same as murder. That doesn't mean you can say 'morality is relative'.... You've incorrectly applied and categorized the absolute...... Again, agree to disagree.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/27/17

You obviously have no idea what absolute morality is. Just leave it at that. I mean Idk how many times I have to explain this. Absolute morality doesn't include context. Period. End of story. When you include context (self-defense as an example) you have delved into relative morality aka "morality is relative". In absolute morality either an action is intrinsically wrong or it is intrinsically right, there is no room for context, there is no gray area. I'll repeat, in absolute morality either an action is intrinsically wrong or it is intrinsically right, there is no room for context, there is no gray area. Let me re-post the damn quote in bold just in case you missed it.

"Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act."

What else needs to be said here? This is what WSO has become, I present you a clear, cogent point based in reality and you regurgitate the same argument that isn't based in anything but your baseless opinion. Smh.

" It should be obvious that the robin hood example and actual stealing are not the same..... Just as killing in self-defense and on the battlefield is not the same as murder"

Yea, it is very obvious, which is why people don't subscribe to the ridiculous standard of absolute morality that you are doing a horrible job of defending.

11/27/17

Yes, I am saying that I don't agree with the absolute you've applied, which your whole argument hinges upon.

Killing is not intrinsically wrong. Murder is intrinsically wrong. It isn't a gray area, it's a clearly separated item. Just because you lump them together does not mean that it works.

God, you're hopeless.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/27/17

What the hell is this response? A clearly separated item? What does that even mean? Lol dude it's amazing I continue to respond to you as if, at this point, you should be taken seriously. Killing is not intrinsically wrong... are you saying killing is intrinsically right? Because under absolute morality it is one or the other.

God, you're hopeless.

11/27/17

In and of itself it's amoral. I gladly accept your butthurt-multiple MS tantrum

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/27/17

Lol... this is the level of debate on WSO folks. Get soundly trounced by fact then retreat into your shell rather than admit you've been corrected and move on. BTW, I could post "water is wet" and I'd get MS on this site. I've ruffled too many feathers, especially in political discussions, with facts and logic. Funny thing is I don't take anything personally, it's just not that serious, apparently others do though.

11/27/17

The level of your delusion is that you think you 'soundly trounced' and 'corrected' me. You've ruffled too many feathers because you're a fucking asshole in the way you argue, regardless of any point you think you do or don't make.

"I don't take anything personally"

Proceeds to fling 12+ monkey shits at user for calling him hopeless

You may be the most un-self-aware person I have ever encountered. I weep for the future.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/27/17

If you think flinging MS on one of your many illogical posts on this thread is "taking things personally" then you're very sensitive dude. I SBed many of your AMA posts in the RE thread btw. I'm sure I'll SB more in the future. That's what I mean by not taking things personally. Lol.. delusional.. the irony. Your entire argument is "morality is absolute" then you proceed to exhibit exactly why morality is relative and continue as if you've made a case that "morality is absolute". Holy shit man, I've been trolled to oblivion. Amoral? There is not room for that in absolute morality.

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

I'm the delusional one though, and I'm an asshole for calling your idiotic argument idiotic. My bad, I should treat some random person online with kid gloves because it would make them feel better about their dumbass argument.

11/27/17

I am not saying you're delusional for saying my argument is idiotic, that's your opinion, that's fine. I'm saying you're delusional if you think that what you write doesn't come off as emotional or personal - whether or not that's actually the case.

I've been arguing that the differentiation is the definition/categorization of the 'certain actions'/absolutes that you quote above. You are saying that's creating context, but I do not think it is the same thing. Context would be justifying doing the same act in some instances vs. others, where as I am saying they are different acts entirely. I don't believe moral absolutism comments at all on a-morality, so not sure where you are getting that from. On all of the above, you obviously disagree with me, and I don't really care.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/27/17

The end result is a dead person. The categories themselves are due to the fact that even in the legal code we subscribe to relative morality. What don't you get about that? The action is taking a life. You judge whether something is moral or not in absolute morality based on that action, it's that simple. Once you add the "category" of on the battlefield vs premeditated taking of a life you are adding context to the situation. That's just a fact man. Not only do I disagree but pretty much any ethics professor you speak to would also disagree. You can not care or you can care alot if you want, but you're still wrong. Plain and simple.

EDIT: Absolute Morality doesn't comment on amorality because it simple doesn't exist under absolute moralist principles... so that's where I am "getting that from".

actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions.

11/21/17
MonkeyWrench:

I never said shoplifting was a violent crime. I said that it was done with malicious/cruel intent. Again, fine, if we want to draw the line of robbery at using a gun or not then so be it, but there are many instances of 'robbery' where no violence was used (one list below).

I didn't mean for this to devolve into a sub-conversation of morality, but I guess I've got to defend my position on this. Normally, people I've encountered who say morality is not black or white usually have had the need to make justifications in the past. Keeping with the example earlier of Walmart, let's go down that route. Someone steals from the Evil Wal-Mart, which is a massive company. Maybe, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but maybe it's happened 4 times in the past month to one of the employees on shift, or maybe the manager is dealing with some other issues and it reflects poorly on his performance and one of those people get fired. My point is when you start saying 'morality is not objective' you start justifying things without necessarily having all the facts. That's why moral absolutes exist. You shouldn't steal being one of them. You might think that you have the 'moral high ground' from instance by instance, but the point is you shouldn't do it. Period. Obviously, if someone steals millions of dollars, it is a different level of crime than stealing peanuts from a convenience store, but that is where the LEGAL system comes in. From a moral perspective, both are theft.

https://www.ranker.com/list/bank-robbers-who-didnt...

Thug means violent. Are you not from here? This is common knowledge. Have I just been successfully trolled? Damn it.

11/22/17

I hear you bro. I've wasted entirely too much time on this. I just can't help myself and feel the need to call out bs. Inevitably it turns into the shit show above. Should've kept it short and sweet like you.

11/22/17

Fight the good fight bro. Words are important and when people use them incorrectly they need to be called out.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

11/22/17

I have obviously been trolling - it's the fucking internet.

"Who am I? I'm the guy that does his job. You must be the other guy."

11/20/17
Rufus1234:

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

You seem to equating the actions of both sides. Except one is a random guy on TV and the other is the President. It's Trumpian logic to say that the President shouldn't have a higher standard of behavior than yhe rabble. It's just another example of the President's comical insecurities. He's not driven by a sense of duty only the desperate and pathetic need for external validation and praise. World leaders are already taking advantage of his psychological problems.

11/20/17
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

You seem to equating the actions of both sides. Except one is a random guy on TV and the other is the President. It's Trumpian logic to say that the President shouldn't have a higher standard of behavior than yhe rabble. It's just another example of the President's comical insecurities. He's not driven by a sense of duty only the desperate and pathetic need for external validation and praise. World leaders are already taking advantage of his psychological problems.

I'm not. I said explicitly that Trump should not have gotten involved. At the same time, yes, Lavar Ball should have at least shown some gratitude as his son committed a crime on foreign soil and could have faced time in a Chinese prison. Trump did not have to intervene on the behalf of the UCLA players. Instead of issuing a quick thank you and moving on, Ball decided to be petty and insult the President.

11/21/17
Rufus1234:
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

You seem to equating the actions of both sides. Except one is a random guy on TV and the other is the President. It's Trumpian logic to say that the President shouldn't have a higher standard of behavior than yhe rabble. It's just another example of the President's comical insecurities. He's not driven by a sense of duty only the desperate and pathetic need for external validation and praise. World leaders are already taking advantage of his psychological problems.

I'm not. I said explicitly that Trump should not have gotten involved. At the same time, yes, Lavar Ball should have at least shown some gratitude as his son committed a crime on foreign soil and could have faced time in a Chinese prison. Trump did not have to intervene on the behalf of the UCLA players. Instead of issuing a quick thank you and moving on, Ball decided to be petty and insult the President.

I mean Lavar is an attention whore. That's what he does. Meanwhile the President decides to stoop to his level because he's an insecure child. Ball did it with the full intention of getting Trump to respond. The better option is to ignore what C-list celebrities think of you. Obviously Trump can't do that.

Edit: And you know, I'd like to get more MS from Trump fanatics (hi Anthony) so I'll also say if I were in Lavar's shoes I'd probably do the same thing. People who are destroying the country don't get any brownie points from me when they occasionally do something decent. That's just my opinion though.

11/21/17
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

You seem to equating the actions of both sides. Except one is a random guy on TV and the other is the President. It's Trumpian logic to say that the President shouldn't have a higher standard of behavior than yhe rabble. It's just another example of the President's comical insecurities. He's not driven by a sense of duty only the desperate and pathetic need for external validation and praise. World leaders are already taking advantage of his psychological problems.

I'm not. I said explicitly that Trump should not have gotten involved. At the same time, yes, Lavar Ball should have at least shown some gratitude as his son committed a crime on foreign soil and could have faced time in a Chinese prison. Trump did not have to intervene on the behalf of the UCLA players. Instead of issuing a quick thank you and moving on, Ball decided to be petty and insult the President.

I mean Lavar is an attention whore. That's what he does. Meanwhile the President decides to stoop to his level because he's an insecure child. Ball did it with the full intention of getting Trump to respond. The better option is to ignore what C-list celebrities think of you. Obviously Trump can't do that.

Edit: And you know, I'd like to get more MS from Trump fanatics (hi Anthony) so I'll also say if I were in Lavar's shoes I'd probably do the same thing. People who are destroying the country don't get any brownie points from me when they occasionally do something decent. That's just my opinion though.

Quite frankly, it's attitudes like this that are making the country more toxic. It's totally fine to disagree with Trump and think he's a terrible President. But to say that one should not thank him for saving his son from prison time on foreign soil because you hate his presidency, is pretty hysterical.

11/21/17
Rufus1234:
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

You seem to equating the actions of both sides. Except one is a random guy on TV and the other is the President. It's Trumpian logic to say that the President shouldn't have a higher standard of behavior than yhe rabble. It's just another example of the President's comical insecurities. He's not driven by a sense of duty only the desperate and pathetic need for external validation and praise. World leaders are already taking advantage of his psychological problems.

I'm not. I said explicitly that Trump should not have gotten involved. At the same time, yes, Lavar Ball should have at least shown some gratitude as his son committed a crime on foreign soil and could have faced time in a Chinese prison. Trump did not have to intervene on the behalf of the UCLA players. Instead of issuing a quick thank you and moving on, Ball decided to be petty and insult the President.

I mean Lavar is an attention whore. That's what he does. Meanwhile the President decides to stoop to his level because he's an insecure child. Ball did it with the full intention of getting Trump to respond. The better option is to ignore what C-list celebrities think of you. Obviously Trump can't do that.

Edit: And you know, I'd like to get more MS from Trump fanatics (hi Anthony) so I'll also say if I were in Lavar's shoes I'd probably do the same thing. People who are destroying the country don't get any brownie points from me when they occasionally do something decent. That's just my opinion though.

Quite frankly, it's attitudes like this that are making the country more toxic. It's totally fine to disagree with Trump and think he's a terrible President. But to say that one should not thank him for saving his son from prison time on foreign soil because you hate his presidency, is pretty hysterical.

Right well we're just not going to agree since I don't think this administration should be treated as legitimate in the first place. It goes well beyond just disagreeing with him though. I would disagree with Ted Cruz as President but at the very least he'd be able to administer the basic responsibilities of the state. As for the current situation, the Presidency should be effectively seen as vacant since that's how the person who pirated the office treats it.

Let's just agree to disagree on the above since the only thing on earth that will change my mind would be Trump actually acting like a President. Other than that you will not convince me. And I'm absolutely fine with being called toxic because the biggest lie that conservatism tells people to sit down and shut up when you feel things are not right in the country. If doing the opposite is toxic then I'm happy to be called that.

11/21/17
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:
thurnis haley:
Rufus1234:

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

You seem to equating the actions of both sides. Except one is a random guy on TV and the other is the President. It's Trumpian logic to say that the President shouldn't have a higher standard of behavior than yhe rabble. It's just another example of the President's comical insecurities. He's not driven by a sense of duty only the desperate and pathetic need for external validation and praise. World leaders are already taking advantage of his psychological problems.

I'm not. I said explicitly that Trump should not have gotten involved. At the same time, yes, Lavar Ball should have at least shown some gratitude as his son committed a crime on foreign soil and could have faced time in a Chinese prison. Trump did not have to intervene on the behalf of the UCLA players. Instead of issuing a quick thank you and moving on, Ball decided to be petty and insult the President.

I mean Lavar is an attention whore. That's what he does. Meanwhile the President decides to stoop to his level because he's an insecure child. Ball did it with the full intention of getting Trump to respond. The better option is to ignore what C-list celebrities think of you. Obviously Trump can't do that.

Edit: And you know, I'd like to get more MS from Trump fanatics (hi Anthony) so I'll also say if I were in Lavar's shoes I'd probably do the same thing. People who are destroying the country don't get any brownie points from me when they occasionally do something decent. That's just my opinion though.

Quite frankly, it's attitudes like this that are making the country more toxic. It's totally fine to disagree with Trump and think he's a terrible President. But to say that one should not thank him for saving his son from prison time on foreign soil because you hate his presidency, is pretty hysterical.

Right well we're just not going to agree since I don't think this administration should be treated as legitimate in the first place. It goes well beyond just disagreeing with him though. I would disagree with Ted Cruz as President but at the very least he'd be able to administer the basic responsibilities of the state. As for the current situation, the Presidency should be effectively seen as vacant since that's how the person who pirated the office treats it.

Let's just agree to disagree on the above since the only thing on earth that will change my mind would be Trump actually acting like a President. Other than that you will not convince me. And I'm absolutely fine with being called toxic because the biggest lie that conservatism tells people to sit down and shut up when you feel things are not right in the country. If doing the opposite is toxic then I'm happy to be called that.

Not legitimate? He was elected through the same process that we use to elect Presidents every four years, and yes, the rules of the modern electoral college have been in place since 1804 via the Twelfth Amendment. The only way the Trump presidency is not legitimate in any substantive sense is if the Russians working directly with Trump, managed to somehow hack the voting machines (which by the way are not connected to the internet) and managed to manipulate the actual vote counts in key swing states.

You claim that Trump is unable to administer the basic responsibilities of the state. The last time I checked, the Executive Branch is continuing to function as an entity of the federal government. There is no nuclear war, catastrophe, Trump rounding up minorities and putting them in internment camps, no ethnic genocide, or the million other hysterical nonsense that liberals claim will happen. For the record, I have been and will continue to remain critical of Trump when he fucks up or does something I strongly disagree with (i.e., not taking a more proactive stance on Obamacare repeal, bashing GOP Senators on twitter, etc.). But what many liberals are doing now is resorting to an automatic reflexive reaction to whatever Trump says or does, simply because it's from Trump. The view expressed by you and iBankedUp exemplifies this mindset, whereby you both admit that even if Trump saved your son from prison time on foreign soil, you would not thank him.

But yeah, we just have a fundamental disagreement on this.

11/20/17
Rufus1234:

Trump vs LaVar Ball is the battle of intellectual heavyweights that our country deserves. Seriously, this whole debacle is retarded, but we are now a nation of fat lazy entitled people, whiny millennials who think their art history major should lead to a lucrative job, social media obsessed people with no ability to read and understand complex arguments, etc. Just as Trump vs Hillary is what we as a nation deserved, this is what we get. Things will only get worse unless the American people get their shit together. Meanwhile, China is making valuable investments in AI, machine learning, genetics, and a host of other industries of the future, are working their ass off, and setting up the stage for a Chinese century. The U.S. is in the midst of systemic decline unless drastic action is taken.

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

I agree that under normal circumstances one should always show gratitude, especially out of respect for the country's highest office. But you have a guy who is effectively an online bully and a poor representative of the office he holds. I don't think he has earned the respect of the office to be treated with respect because he doesn't show a lot of respect for the office itself.

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a reputable academic institution"
-Most job applications

11/20/17
iBankedUp:
Rufus1234:

Trump vs LaVar Ball is the battle of intellectual heavyweights that our country deserves. Seriously, this whole debacle is retarded, but we are now a nation of fat lazy entitled people, whiny millennials who think their art history major should lead to a lucrative job, social media obsessed people with no ability to read and understand complex arguments, etc. Just as Trump vs Hillary is what we as a nation deserved, this is what we get. Things will only get worse unless the American people get their shit together. Meanwhile, China is making valuable investments in AI, machine learning, genetics, and a host of other industries of the future, are working their ass off, and setting up the stage for a Chinese century. The U.S. is in the midst of systemic decline unless drastic action is taken.

With respect to this specific incident: 1) Trump is immature and petty to get into a twitter fight over this rather than using twitter to advocate for something meaningful, such as tax reform, and 2) LaVar Ball should have shown some gratitude to the President; after all, his thug son committed a crime on foreign soil, a country that doesn't mess around when it comes to crime.

I agree that under normal circumstances one should always show gratitude, especially out of respect for the country's highest office. But you have a guy who is effectively an online bully and a poor representative of the office he holds. I don't think he has earned the respect of the office to be treated with respect because he doesn't show a lot of respect for the office he holds.

He's still the President of the United States, who was elected by the American people. You can hate the guy and think he's a piece of shit President and human being, fine. But when your son commits a crime on foreign soil, is facing jail time, and the leader of the free world intervenes on his behalf even though he was under no obligation to do so, just a brief thank you would have sufficed. Instead, Ball decided to be clever, denying that he knows who Trump is and denying that Trump had anything to do with his son's release. It was a shitty move.

11/20/17

So let me go and Tweet about my company, which I was hired to "serve" or do a job, then go and ask them to support me for a raise or referral. It's not gonna happen. I feel 0 enthusiasm about what this president is doing. Nah. Good on this guy.

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a reputable academic institution"
-Most job applications

11/20/17
iBankedUp:

So let me go and Tweet about my company, which I was hired to "serve" or do a job, then go and ask them to support me for a raise or referral. It's not gonna happen. I feel 0 enthusiasm about what this president is doing. Nah. Good on this guy.

Who said anything about you being enthusiastic. So to use your analogy, let's say your loved one works for a crappy CEO who you don't care for at all. While abroad on a business trip, your loved one commits a crime and is potentially facing years in prison. The CEO goes out of his way to talk to the people and get him released. By your reasoning, the CEO does not deserve any thanks because you disagree with him and think he's a lousy CEO. Pretty shitty reasoning, but to be expected from hysterical liberals.

11/20/17

We, as Americans, do not work for the president; the president works for us. You seem to be confused about that. We show respect, affection, and appreciation for the president's service to the American people. Is that not easy to comprehend?

In your analogy, the CEO should really be the employee. If the employee has relations overseas and the CEO committed an act that was frowned upon or maybe even landed him in an overseas prison, the employee would have a duty to speak to his contacts or else he could be fired for insubordination or lack of commitment to the job.

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a reputable academic institution"
-Most job applications

11/20/17
iBankedUp:

We, as Americans, do not work for the president; the president works for us. You seem to be confused about that. We show respect, affection, and appreciation for the president's service to the American people. Is that not easy to comprehend?

In your analogy, the CEO should really be the employee. If the employee has relations overseas and the CEO committed an act that was frowned upon or maybe even landed him in an overseas prison, the employee would have a duty to speak to his contacts or else he could be fired for insubordination or lack of commitment to the job.

There seem to be 2 separate issues. One is whether Trump is debasing the office of the Presidency and deserves your personal respect and the other is whether one should at least thank Trump for what he did to get the kid out of jail. The former is a legitimate issue, and one is entitled to his opinion. You seem to be arguing however that because you find Trump so personally objectionable, one should not even thank him for saving the guy's son from potential time in a foreign prison. If that's your position, then we just have a fundamental disagreement, as it is a position that I find pretty absurd. I despised Barack Obama, but if he helped out my son like that, I will thank him and move on. It does not mean that I owe Obama my vote or some sense of feudal loyalty. But just a simple thanks? Sure.

11/20/17

That's the problem. By tradition, there's no difference between the respect you hold for the office and the respect the American people hold for you. George Washington was chosen not because of some qualifications or magic goodie bag to give treats and trinkets to people. Instead, he was the most revered and respected person at the time. Because of how honorable he was as a man and president, he is widely viewed as having set the tone for the American President after he stepped down voluntarily after two terms of four years and reserved respect for Congress by not interfering in their activities. All presidents since have been expected to follow this tradition as well as try to reach this bar set by Washington. These are not separate issues, this is the core, fundamental issue relating to the president. If not, we'd get a tyrant and the American experiment falls to pieces.

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a reputable academic institution"
-Most job applications

11/20/17
iBankedUp:

That's the problem. By tradition, there's no difference between the respect you hold for the office and the respect the American people hold for you. George Washington was chosen not because of some qualifications or magic goodie bag to give treats and trinkets to people. Instead, he was the most revered and respected person at the time. Because of how honorable he was as a man and president, he is widely viewed as having set the tone for the American President after he stepped down voluntarily after two terms of four years and reserved respect for Congress by not interfering in their activities. All presidents since have been expected to follow this tradition as well as try to reach this bar set by Washington. These are not separate issues, this is the core, fundamental issue relating to the president. If not, we'd get a tyrant and the American experiment falls to pieces.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Washington, but you still haven't answered my question. If you were in Ball's situation, and the President intervened to get your son out of jail in a foreign country, would you at least say thank you? If the answer is no, you are admitting that such an act does not even deserve a modicum of gratitude because you personally disagree with and find the President objectionable. If that's your position, it's your right to have it, but it is certainly a "unique" one, and it reveals the depth of your hysteria regarding this President.

I'm not gonna get into a historical argument on what constitutes presidential "behavior" worthy of respect. Presidents are deeply flawed human beings. Do I think Trump can be more presidential? Sure. Do I think what Trump is doing is worse than say Bill Clinton engaging in sexual acts with a White House intern in the Oval Office and committing perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up? Do I think it's worse than LBJ taking out his private parts during a Cabinet meeting to show why he cannot withdraw from Vietnam? Do I think it's worse than JFK using the White House as his personal harem, including sleeping with college girls? Do I think it's worse than FDR saying openly that Jews and Japanese-Americans can never be truly loyal to our country and putting the latter in internment camps? If you think Trump's behavior is fundamentally worse and more sinister than all other prior Presidents in U.S. history, then well, you certainly are doing a good job reading Huffington Post.

11/20/17

These are all single incidents you're bringing up, whereas I'm referring to Trump's consistent showing of incompetence and ignorance about the office; his unusually long-since elected unfulfilled posts; his supposed to be business first but directly tried to tank the NFL; his direct mocking of veterans; his unsteady hand up to this point with the fallout of fixing healthcare in a workable solution; his half-hearted run of the mill, typical republican tax policy that fails to be comprehensive enough and cut middle class taxes; his incompetence with essentially attempting to pass a 'muslim ban'; and all of this with the world now on the verge of some potential conflict.

I'm not looking to go into debating you on each of the points about past presidents you raised as that is much too specific. I'm looking at the holistic affects, or lack thereof, that this president has had on Americans, which seems to really show he lacks competence to execute on behalf of the people he is supposed to be serving. So, when he pulls his shit together and start getting the job done, the rest of us can do the same.

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a reputable academic institution"
-Most job applications

11/20/17

If you think what Ball did is in any way becoming of an adult or justified at all, you're either a moron or lying...

Trump needs to learn how to shut the hell up more than he does, but again...if you think feeling annoyed that someone just publicly trash-talked you right after you got their son out of a very tough legal situation in another country is somehow wrong...again...you're either not very intelligent or you're a liar.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Financial Modeling
11/20/17

WWE PayPerView is where it's at next for these two

11/20/17

I bet LaVar would at least visit Wisconsin on his campaign.

26 Broadway
where's your sense of humor?

11/20/17

Let's review what LaVar Ball actually said to ESPN regarding this incident.

"Who? What was he over there for? Don't tell me nothing. Everybody wants to make it seem like he helped me out. As long as my boy's back here, I'm fine. I'm happy with how things were handled. A lot of people like to say a lot of things that they thought happened over there. Like I told him, 'They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.' I'm from L.A. I've seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses. My son has built up enough character that one bad decision doesn't define him. Now if you can go back and say when he was 12 years old he was shoplifting and stealing cars and going wild, then that's a different thing."

Now, couple of things stick out when you read this commentary. First, Ball never once thanks or expresses any semblance of gratitude for what the President did. Keep in mind that those UCLA ball players were not political prisoners, human rights activists, or captured U.S. soldiers. They are grown men who committed a crime on foreign soil. Yet, Trump intervened on their behalf. Now, it certainly is possible that they would have been released anyway, but when the Leader of the Free World gets involved, it certainly helps. Second, Ball dismisses his son's theft as a "big deal out of nothing," which is pretty astounding coming from a father and supposed role model. What type of example is he setting for his kids? To be frank, with a dad like that, I'm not too surprised his son got in trouble. Ball does not express any sense of personal responsibility or guilt for what his son did but rather excuses it.

So yes, Ball is an ingrate and a douchebag. This has nothing to do with whether one personally approves of Trump as the President. If Ball had said something like the following, this would not be an issue: "I thank President Trump for helping out my son and his friends. I certainly did not vote for him, but I am grateful for what he did. My son messed up, and as a father, I will work to make sure my son grows into a man of character."

11/20/17
Rufus1234:

"I thank President Trump for helping out my son and his friends. I certainly did not vote for him, but I am grateful for what he did. My son messed up, and as a father, I will work to make sure my son grows into a man of character."

That requires; class, acknowledgment of responsibility, admission of wrongdoing, and humility. None of which LaVar possesses.

26 Broadway
where's your sense of humor?

11/21/17

Dude the guy is a huge troll. He said he could beat Michael Jordan in a game of 1v1 bball. I find it hilarious that you're actually taking the time to analyze him as if he's to be taken seriously. Of course our POTUS is also a troll so this is perfect. I bet Lavar responds and this turns into a full blown national crisis. Lmao.

p.s. the son already personally thanked the president and apologized, listening to the attention seeking troll Dad is pointless.

11/20/17

You guys have lost me; I'm with Trump on this one.

11/21/17

Hilarious that people actually think Trump did something to save the Ball son from 5-10 years in a Chinese prison

11/21/17

It seems that Trump's outreach may not have had the impact he suggested :/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/asia/chin...

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

11/21/17

Oh shoot.....it's the Failing NY Times! #Fake news

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

11/22/17

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21512903/presid...
The POTUS has fired back after Lavar's recent CNN interview. Trump vs. Lavar Ball, I swear you can't make this shit up. Ball is going to use every upcoming chance with this new attention to promote Big Baller Brand lmao.

11/22/17

I can't wait to tell my grandkids about the great "Lavar vs. Trump" twitter feud. What a time to be alive.

11/25/17

Dear Lavar Ball,

God bless you. Against all odds, you have managed to pull off the impossible. You are an inspiration to millions. You have done what most of us can only dream of. You have accomplished a feat so tremendous that there is no trophy large enough to encapsulate the truly magnificent achievement...

You have managed to troll a troll

11/27/17

Just saw Trump's Native American comments towards Warren scroll across my open window of CNBC - Jesus Christ he is a savage. She was shaking in her response.

26 Broadway
where's your sense of humor?

11/28/17
TippyTop11:

Just saw Trump's Native American comments towards Warren scroll across my open window of CNBC - Jesus Christ he is a savage. She was shaking in her response.

It's an undeniable travesty that Donald Trump is president of the US, and really a mockery of the office

11/29/17

Yeah, using a 20 year old intern as a personal cigar humidifier and the sex planes is the standard we need to set.

26 Broadway
where's your sense of humor?

11/29/17
TippyTop11:

Yeah, using a 20 year old intern as a personal cigar humidifier and the sex planes is the standard we need to set.

Why is that the standard? Assuming of course that you're not just pulling a cheap straw man, ie the lowest form of argument

11/29/17

Unlock These Comments - Free

Join Us or Login

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

11/29/17
11/29/17

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

11/29/17
11/30/17

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Add a Comment