Poisoned Skittles? And WE have a problem?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by papadee

I'll answer the question. Of course not. But it's such an infantile, simplistic analogy, why would a serious campaign use it. If we make the police Skittles and ask a black man to trust them, would he eat them? No. Hell, if we made black men Skittles and ask the U.S. to trust them, would YOU eat them? Even in the hobby, 3 Skittles have STDs, would you go BB?

Simplistic arguments for complex issues is the Trump campaign mantra. Instead of identifying the poisoned ones, and finding the source of the poison, we tweet, retweet, and debate crap like this.

The Clinton campaign uses the simplistic gross generalization about Mr. Trump's supporters, so why not hit back with it?

Liberals still do not comprehend why they are so despised - you think people who disagree with you are simplistic morons, and you do not validate their opinions.

Hence, the simplistic retort is for you to fuck off and die.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by papadee

I'll answer the question. Of course not. But it's such an infantile, simplistic analogy, why would a serious campaign use it. If we make the police Skittles and ask a black man to trust them, would he eat them? No. Hell, if we made black men Skittles and ask the U.S. to trust them, would YOU eat them? Even in the hobby, 3 Skittles have STDs, would you go BB?

Simplistic arguments for complex issues is the Trump campaign mantra. Instead of identifying the poisoned ones, and finding the source of the poison, we tweet, retweet, and debate crap like this.

You make absolutely no sense. Trump's analogy was perfect. The refugee situation is not a complex issue. It is simple. Give them a safe zone in their own country. Allowing tens of thousands of people into this country without proper vetting is asking for Americans to be murdered in a terrorist attack. Are all of the refugees terrorists? Not at all but it only takes 1.

[tonyvicksa]

Your comment is stupid and proves his point. Conservatives answer no to POTENTIALLY dangerous BB, skittles and immigrants. Libs answer no the the perfect analogies and yes to immigrants.

You may be more pro Trump than you realize. Your suggestion that "Instead of identifying the poisoned ones, and finding the source of the poison..." is exactly what Trump wants. He wants to TEMPORARILY stop immigration from dangerous regions until we figure out how to ID the poisonous one. You and Trump are on the same page on this issue.



'll answer the question. Of course not. But it's such an infantile, simplistic analogy, why would a serious campaign use it. If we make the police Skittles and ask a black man to trust them, would he eat them? No. Hell, if we made black men Skittles and ask the U.S. to trust them, would YOU eat them? Even in the hobby, 3 Skittles have STDs, would you go BB?
Simplistic arguments for complex issues is the Trump campaign mantra. Instead of identifying the poisoned ones, and finding the source of the poison, we tweet, retweet, and debate crap like this.

[papadee]

For Tony & Budman, what about homegrown poison? The NY poison came to the US at 7. Others were born here. Once again, we have to stop them from becoming poisoned. Unless your next idea is to lock up all people legally in the US who look like Skittles Because there are some poisoned ones in that bowl too.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

Your comment is stupid and proves his point. Conservatives answer no to POTENTIALLY dangerous BB, skittles and immigrants. Libs answer no the the perfect analogies and yes to immigrants.

You may be more pro Trump than you realize. Your suggestion that "Instead of identifying the poisoned ones, and finding the source of the poison..." is exactly what Trump wants. He wants to TEMPORARILY stop immigration from dangerous regions until we figure out how to ID the poisonous one. You and Trump are on the same page on this issue.



'll answer the question. Of course not. But it's such an infantile, simplistic analogy, why would a serious campaign use it. If we make the police Skittles and ask a black man to trust them, would he eat them? No. Hell, if we made black men Skittles and ask the U.S. to trust them, would YOU eat them? Even in the hobby, 3 Skittles have STDs, would you go BB?
Simplistic arguments for complex issues is the Trump campaign mantra. Instead of identifying the poisoned ones, and finding the source of the poison, we tweet, retweet, and debate crap like this.

I noticed you left out Blacks & the police on the conservative no.

[tonyvicksa]

Originally Posted by papadee

I noticed you left out Blacks & the police on the conservative no.

Because it is a stupid analogy. You have a choice to go BB, eat Skittles or let immigrants in.

Blacks, and all people, have no choice, they have to deal with police. The US consist of blacks and we all interact. Trust them or not trust them, (I Do) it is not a choice to do without them.

Sadly when libs have a choice to temporarily stop immigrants from high risk areas they choose not to. How the fuck can anyone be against a temporary ban until the good and the bad are sorted out.

[tonyvicksa]

Wouldn't every single one of us go Bareback and eat the Skittles once the Hookers with STDs and the poisoned skittles are removed from the mix. I sure the fuck would.

So tell me papapee why will you go Bareback,and eat the Skittles once the threat is gone. But refuse to use the same common sense when dealing with dangerous immigrants?

Originally Posted by papadee

I'll answer the question. Of course not. But it's such an infantile, simplistic analogy, why would a serious campaign use it. If we make the police Skittles and ask a black man to trust them, would he eat them? No. Hell, if we made black men Skittles and ask the U.S. to trust them, would YOU eat them? Even in the hobby, 3 Skittles have STDs, would you go BB?

Simplistic arguments for complex issues is the Trump campaign mantra. Instead of identifying the poisoned ones, and finding the source of the poison, we tweet, retweet, and debate crap like this.

[tonyvicksa]

US citizens are here legally and locking them up or deporting them is not an option. There has to be a different way to deal with them. However the subject at hand is not how to deal with home grown terror. It is how to deal with immigration from dangerous areas of the world. Focus son focus...

Originally Posted by papadee

For Tony & Budman, what about homegrown poison? The NY poison came to the US at 7. Others were born here. Once again, we have to stop them from becoming poisoned. Unless your next idea is to lock up all people legally in the US who look like Skittles Because there are some poisoned ones in that bowl too.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by papadee

For Tony & Budman, what about homegrown poison? The NY poison came to the US at 7. Others were born here. Once again, we have to stop them from becoming poisoned. Unless your next idea is to lock up all people legally in the US who look like Skittles Because there are some poisoned ones in that bowl too.

Since there are some homegrown terrorist then we should open the door to all terrorists? Is that what you are suggesting? Or are you just fine with Americans being murdered as long as we don't offend anyone? You don't appear to be any smarter than the OP. He is a pathetic moron and you are going down the same path.

[papadee]

Dbl Post

[papadee]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

Wouldn't every single one of us go Bareback and eat the Skittles once the Hookers with STDs and the poisoned skittles are removed from the mix. I sure the fuck would.

So tell me papapee why will you go Bareback,and eat the Skittles once the threat is gone. But refuse to use the same common sense when dealing with dangerous immigrants?

Not sure I understand your point. It seems to me you're saying that if we remove the dangerous Skittles, STDs, then it's OK. So if we remove the dangerous immigrants, the rest are OK? Which is what I said about identifying the bad ones.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

US citizens are here legally and locking them up or deporting them is not an option. There has to be a different way to deal with them. However the subject at hand is not how to deal with home grown terror. It is how to deal with immigration from dangerous areas of the world. Focus son focus...

No... The subject here was that stupid tweet analogy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by papadee

No... The subject here was that stupid tweet analogy.

How about "marbles"? Would that make you happier?

Liberals need more "marbles"!

[tonyvicksa]

Which is EXACTLY what Trump wants to do. BTW The analogy of Skittles was used but the thread is about immigration.

Originally Posted by papadee

Not sure I understand your point. It seems to me you're saying that if we remove the dangerous Skittles, STDs, then it's OK. So if we remove the dangerous immigrants, the rest are OK? Which is what I said about identifying the bad ones.

[Guest123018-4]

make it a bowl of M& Ms.

the biggest difference is that we should be able to choose to not eat any M&Ms yet our government is telling us that we do not have a choice. Our government decides to put all of the M&Ms in a bunch of different packages and ships them around the nation. Who knows where the poisoned ones will show up.

How about we take all those rich liberals properties and build some section 8 housing there for these "refugees" you think there might be an outcry?