Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2025 at 4:57pm:


Keep trying to dodge, it's all you've got left when you're not trying to defend the indefensible.

Frank wrote on Aug 7^th, 2025 at 11:41am:


Let's be honest, it wouldn't matter what I pointed to. You'd still dismiss it with some smug deflection or personal swipe. That's your entire shtick. You don't engage, you perform, mostly for your own sense of superiority.

But despite your habit of bad faith and your refusal to engage honestly with anyone who doesn't echo your worldview, I'll humour you.

The post I made in response to you was intellectual, not just in tone, but in substance. It was grounded in reasoning, evidence, and ethical argument. It directly addressed your claims, not your character, and it did so without the lazy condescension, projection, and adolescent provocation that typically define your replies.

The irony here is thick enough to bottle. You're lamenting the supposed "dehumanisation" and "demonisation" tactics of the Left while defending a movement that worships a man credibly accused of rape, who brags about sexual assault, walks in on naked teenagers, and pals around with a convicted child trafficker. Spare us the high-minded lectures on civility and moral discourse.

Your entire post is a masterclass in projection. You whine about degradation and humiliation while aligning yourself with a political cult that mock disabled people, chant "lock her up", call women "nasty", immigrants "animals", and political opponents "vermin".

The Trumpist right perfected the politics of cruelty, and now you want to pretend you're shocked that people aren't politely debating whether a sex offender in the Oval Office should be held accountable?

Dragging Solzhenitsyn into this is pure farce. The man warned against totalitarianism, not against calling out predators or the moral rot of political fanbases.

You're not referencing him because you understand him, you're using his name as intellectual camouflage to dress up your complicity. Just like Scoot.

And the idea that calling out Trump's abuses is somehow Soviet-style "psychological warfare" is utterly deranged. No one is rounding up Trump supporters and sending them to gulags. They're being criticised because they're at best minimising child sexual abuse and at worst, flat out defending it, and you can't handle that.

You talk about the "loss of loyal opposition", but where was that when your side was cheering seditionists storming the Capitol? Where was it when Trump tried to overthrow an election and install himself as dictator? You don't get to plead for civility after helping torch the rules of the game. This isn't a debate club.

The truth is, you're upset that people are no longer afraid to speak plainly about what your movement has become. You mistake moral clarity for incivility and outrage for oppression. (You're not being silenced, you're being held accountable.

And it's about damn time.

You've not criticised a single one of Trump's truly damaging policy decisions during his second term. Not one. You don't see any problem with him issuing thousands of pardons to January 6 insurrectionists - especially those tried and convicted of violent crimes. You don't see any problem with Trump accepting a plane from Qatar as a personal gift. Yeah, they say it's for the US Dept. of Defence, but the truth it it will end up in Trumps' possession when his term ends. You don't see a problem with him firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics just because he doesn't like the jobs numbers she published. Admit it you're a Trump fanatic!

Theŕ is a lot of "'you' language, as ever, for someone with intellectual pretentions. If,  in addition, one tabulated the verbs and the adjectives, a totally emotionally overwrought picture jumps out.

Your claims of intellectual substance is like Bbwiyawn's claims of being more educated than most, evidenced by his contributions of7 ABC headlines and twilight zones - that is, mentally totally negligible contribution devoid of any ideas. He boasts vainly.  Your contributions is equally mentally negligible, bereft of any ideas or substance but delivered in a verbose, hyperbolic, emotionally charged manner: Trump gives you dermatillomania and you simply can't stop scratching it. Scratching your Trump-itch is all there is in your 'intellectual' life.


Not going along with your emotional hyperbole is NOT 'worshipping' Trump, or covering up, defending, cheering sedition, torching the rules and all the other breathless emoting bollocks that you lay on thick with a trowel. Being a hysteric like you is not moral clarity and disagreeing with you is not the voice of the devil.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 7^th, 2025 at 3:14pm:



Are you intellectual now or were you intellectiual in your 'intellectual rebuttal'?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 7^th, 2025 at 3:27pm:



Who said this?

Quote:



I am still asking you for the intellectual bit that you boasted about Bbwiyawnesquely.
The intellectual reasoning, evidenced and ethical argument you promised. Because what I reposted from you was nothing but another emotionally incontinent rant. Lots of 'you' language, laughably hyperbolic pile of verbiage over-egged, as usual, with manic adjectives.
It's gist : Trump's given you mental dermatillomania.

Let's be honest, it wouldn't matter what I pointed to. You'd still dismiss it with some smug deflection or personal swipe. That's your entire shtick. You don't engage, you perform, mostly for your own sense of superiority.

has Frank had a heart attack yet? He can't be to far away now.

Frank wrote on Aug 7^th, 2025 at 7:53pm:


I called it of course,

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 7^th, 2025 at 1:22pm:


The rest is just smug bombastic gaseous waffle.

Try again.