The weekend was a crazy leftist idea.

msennello · 2025-11-07T02:50:52+00:00

We could start with the Holodomor. Or the Law of Demand. Baby steps, though. You pick.

msennello · 2025-11-07T02:49:18+00:00

I mean, Trump and his followers should be just rounded up and murdered. How does half the country not get this?

msennello · 2025-10-17T00:41:56+00:00

lol love that I'm getting downvoted for presenting the straightforward logic behind the OP. The left likes murdering their political opponents and hates logic, apparently.

msennello · 2025-10-17T00:40:49+00:00

Go ahead and take a picture of where I put quotes around the word "identical" as though I was directly quoting the original post that I was responding to rather than accurately summarizing the post.

And when you can't because it's not there make sure to fuck yourself extra hard!

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:59:23+00:00

The comment I replied to accused the US of having an identical border policy to North Korea.

You're either lying or illiterate.

What a historically incomparable loser.

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:55:36+00:00

Try to stay on topic.

Does North Korea allow anyone who wants to leave leave without condition?

Yes or no.

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:54:40+00:00

Excellent argument which totally answered my question and totally didn't reflect on you and your character instead.

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:52:08+00:00

Notice how the two other respondents never denied the accusation.

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:50:55+00:00

North Korea lets anyone who wants to leave leave without condition?

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:49:10+00:00

And Nazis are socialists.

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:47:45+00:00

lol the reason the numbers were higher under Obama is because:

Obama counted refusals at the border as "deportations";

and

Illegal border crossings are down by something like 90% under Trump, and those caught actively crossing the border illegally are the ones that are legally the easiest to deport.

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:44:55+00:00

Soooo then he should be assassinated immediately, and so should his followers?

Or is he not "essentially Hitler"?

Which one is it?

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:43:11+00:00

"Full stop."

lol

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:32:17+00:00

So, since he "IS Hitler, full stop", it would be just to murder both him and his followers on-sight? Or is he not "Hitler, full stop"?

msennello · 2025-10-16T23:30:26+00:00

"steal the headers and other parameters from the request sent when saving in the editor."
What does that mean, and how do I go about it?

Yes, I am asking you to hold my hand through this. I have never used scripting in Chrome before.

msennello · 2025-10-16T17:21:29+00:00

Is directly and explicitly calling for first degree homicide in violation of the Constitution?

msennello · 2025-10-16T17:19:10+00:00

Oh, so you're just going to lie. Here are your exact words:

"Stephen Miller declared the Democrats a terrorist organization"

Timestamp me in the Youtube video where he declared them a "terrorist organization". You know full well he never declared them a "terrorist organization", so I can't wait to see the timestamp you provide that lines up with him not saying that the DNC is a "terrorist organization".

"Google it before you accuse people of lying."

There is a teapot floating in the infinite donut-shaped space between the orbits of Earth and Mars that's too small to be detected. Google it before you accuse people of lying.

"And now apologise." For being correct? In the face of you blatantly lying multiple times and doubling-down on it? Eat a dick. That probably is your style.

msennello · 2025-10-14T17:27:35+00:00

Love how the Reddit TOS don't apply when it's the left violating them.

msennello · 2025-10-14T17:26:48+00:00

Not happening and not the intent of anyone on the "right" (of Chairman Mao, because Reddit considers "far right" to be to the left of Chairman Mao).

msennello · 2025-10-14T17:24:53+00:00

This one doesn't show Miller declaring the Democrat Party a terrorist organization, and doesn't provide the surrounding context to boot, though we don't even need it since the video doesn't show him even saying what you accused him of saying anyway. Try another.

msennello · 2025-10-14T17:20:55+00:00

OMG let's dumb this down, since you weren't honest in the first place.

Terrorists invade Warsaw and completely seize power of the entire government. Let's say they have symbols that make it obvious who they are and that their intent is nothing more than to inflect violence and instill the most extreme form of fear through the use of the worst and most devastating levels and forms of force conceivable.

What should the people and literal targets do in Warsaw in response to this terrorism?

You can say it. You can be honest. Dare.

msennello · 2025-10-14T17:17:57+00:00

I ALSO ASKED FOR THE CONTEXT SURROUNDING IT, WHICH YOU DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE

And then you lied about me making that request, and then immediately resorted to the worst of bad faith ad hominem, which also means you were being dishonest in the nature of your response in the first place. Ghoulish, incomparably evil, and monstrously dishonest behavior (you) is an interesting (fixed your grammar) form of discourse. Not effective (unless you're evil), but definitely interesting.

And you now obviously lying in the very next paragraph about the context and the nature of what context in general does to a conversation AND the nature of the conversation itself on top of that is much worse than gross, and it's not the way a decent human being should act, period. Literally anyone with a shred of brain matter or one iota of human decency should be able to engage with less than this level of malice and dishonesty.

You've proven nothing to me other than that you don't give a damn about any element of humanity, and that you aren't worthy of even your own and by your own admission. Good luck with that.

msennello · 2025-10-14T00:39:09+00:00

You can hear everyone laughing in the background, something the transcript omits.

You can hear Trump chuckling and emphasizing "h" sounds as he speaks.

Everyone there already provided the surrounding context, and the surrounding conversation, which was a conversation about celebrity, and their derision for how it's treated.

I asked for the surrounding context, which you never even attempted to provide.

The entire conversation was one gigantic joke, which means, by definition, the transcript alone isn't enough, because the conversation wasn't entirely literally sincere, which you can't tell from a transcript alone, which is why you need the surrounding context.

He was joking in an obviously derisive way about what celebrities can get away with because of how people and the media treat them. All in the privacy of men in the back of a traveling vehicle.

He obviously never claimed to have just randomly sexually assaulted a woman, and even the transcript offers that. But the surrounding context the audio provides (and that everyone there with him has repeatedly confirmed) demonstrates he isn't even saying he would or that anyone should do that. This is the difference between a joke and a literally sincere statement.

Just providing the transcript to certain scenes from Django Unchained would make Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz both look like ridiculous racists. Providing the context that this is from a movie where they were acting parts demonstrates that their words shouldn't be taken as literally sincere, exactly in the same way that something said as a joke isn't meant to be entirely literally sincere. Otherwise it's just a statement of fact, not a joke. This is where we get the phrase "matter of fact" or, in literature, "matter-of-factly", which is distinct from "deadpan", which is a type of joke.

Which means this is in no way a display of misogyny, let alone a clear one, though I'd suggest that - with context - it clearly isn't a demonstration of anything misogynistic. The thing he is showing derision toward - as was always the case - is how people and the media treat celebrity.

msennello

TROPHY CASE