Which is what most mansplaining consists of, come to think of it.

do even more research, and it turns out THEY don't fucking know.

But it isn't really about that. This is a Bernie faction coming back for more primary bashing.

They. just. keep. doing. it.

to let go. It's been happening locally, too, with a few people I know running around aimlessly shouting "if only..."

We just lost a serious Congressional election along with the orange shitgibbon's ascension, and there's real work to be done, not reworking the past.

And, yes, I see treason abounding, along with what were once considered acts of war. Unfortunately, there are powers out there just not listening or caring.

but we have to remind them of it every fucking day.

If Bill Clinton's keeping Yassir Arafat on hold is a constitutional crisis, the idea that this "once was" considered acts of war, or that this "once was" considered treason, says something about the perpetrators. Not about the victims.

Calling it 'being an arrogant jackass' does not draw upon the well of identity politics so we need new terms.

Let me explain why...

TlalocW

There's definitely some tension but "sworn enemy" seems a little extreme.

I can say they are definitely not our sworn enemies.

Who has that authority, and when did it happen?

You made the claim, back it up.

It's BS and you've been called on it. You've decided to dodge.

But, playing victim right off the bat is pretty much an admission of a weak argument.

but thank you for mansplaining a weak argument.

I am sure you think you are the arbiter of such things.

Often with a tinge of hyperbole.

Rather different from "sworn-in enemies," which is what often happens in court of law. I don't think there's a chief magistrate able to swear in Russia as an enemy in the court of war, were such a thing to exist.

Usually "sworn enemies" has reciprocity in the definition, but it strikes me that results from the plural noun referring to two parties. I could imagine somebody felicitiously saying "Bertie and Jeeves are my sworn enemies, but honestly, I fail to see what I did to incur such animosity".

Saying "Roger and Bertie are sworn enemies" in isolation rather presupposes reciprocity in any decent parsing of the verb's semantics.


I'll put this down as flouting Grice. I'll leave aside intentionality. (http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsTheCooperativePrinciple.htm)

or womansplaining? I think someone is keeping score.

much appreciated.

Best buds with trump and many of his cabinet. T's daughter takes vaca's with Putties girl friend. Yes, I would say they are sworn enemies at least with Dems. Repukes love Russia now. They sure hold the same values.

Albeit sarcastically done.

From a well, actually...

As if this thread wasn't ridiculous enough, let's add some gratuitous Bernie bashing.

But suuuuuuuuuuuure. Russia isn't our enemy. Neither is Iraq.

Nope

An argument *could* be made that the USSR (whos stated goal was violent worldwide communist revolution ) was a sworn enemy of ours. However, Russia is not the USSR.

and technically the KGB does not exist.

But there's Vlad...

Maybe you missed it. We won the cold war.

And while the communist USSR no longer exists, they have a dictator leader, Putin, who is former KGB, messes in our elections and would love nothing more than to see us lose our freedoms and standing in the world.

Malyavin and Dugin would have a few things to say about it, as well.

Unless by "Russia" you mean the population, in which you have part of a point. But looking over the pop-lit that is avidly read by many males, esp. those under 30, you'd realize that that part of a point isn't all that impressively large.

Then again, they'd just call you an amerikos (which the urban dictionary defines as "dumb American", but leaves out a bit of the nuance and put-down; it's sort of like "ameri-fag&quot .

Crazy talk about Russia will give us 2 term President Trump.

Only our allies.

I don't know what you're describing.

There's always the possibility that you're actually just wrong.

but thank you for your concern.

"2 + 2 = 4."

"Stop mansplaining to me!"

Including a lecture in the Constitution I received because I was born in a tree on the African plains and raised by apes....

They really don't.

but so many cant resist........ us stupid women and all.

hmm, well, i suppose technically, i could transition and *then* prove you wrong; but, i'm just not that committed to making a point

well played, laydeebug.

well played indeed.

Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

not only to the US, but to the world.

Putin has global aspirations. He wants to reunite/recreate the Soviet Union. He has ruled Russia, in some capacity, for almost two decades. He is fomenting insurrection within the European Union and now has inserted himself into the Middle Eastern sphere.

His goal is Soviet Domination. He wants to destroy the Western world and has the patience, talent, and intelligence to do so.

Yes, Russia is our enemy because they wanted to destroy us during the Cold War then and they want to destroy us now. They have the convenient tool of Donald Trump to use as the Trojan Horse that will defeat us from within.

The fact that we just so casually accept that Russia is not our enemy and Putin is not out to destroy us is proof that Putin is succeeding in his goals.

They seem oblivious to it...and your last sentence is spot on!

My Daddy fought in a war to keep Russian influence out of a small country. Doused in Agent Orange repeatedly, it eventually cost him his life.

I take particular *umbrage* with traitors welcoming them now like it's hunky dory.

that they likely had a hand in their candidate losing the primary. Bernie clearly associates that kind of crap with the working class and he was trying to win that vote. It's become more obvious since the election. He was trying to out-Trump Trump. Now we all lose.