It's really hard to tell what's sarcasm in this comment and what, if anything, isn't.

Edit: never mind, reread it and realized you're just a crazy person.

There's no drag queen church to protect them from their crimes and shuffle them around to another diocese so that they can continue hurting children. I would say that's the most glaring difference here.

It isn't misinformation, you're simply making inferences that aren't inherent to the post you've read. Exactly what the post title and text says is true. You're either unable to cope with something like OCD (and therefore unable to accept the post as anything other than what you personally would consider ideal) or you're being obtuse in order to derail the post as much as you can. But really it just seems like you just need to maybe chill out a bit, have a chuckle or don't, and then move on.

Bernie was ultimately defeated by superdelegates, not by people voting in the primaries.

Who let the boomers in here? Why are we talking about communists?

Bringing up participation trophies is a great way to sound like a clueless old person who accidentally ended up here from Facebook.

ITT: Dave Chapelle, man who left his hit show abruptly because he was concerned about the audience he had cultivated comes back to America to live with old white people and cultivate a new audience that's much worse.

Dude, the US was grown out of the blood of the people who were already living in whatever place they wanted to be at the time. Every president has done something horrible to people who were just trying to live their lives. Kennedy did an exceptional amount for the average worker despite that and if other presidents had followed in his footsteps, we would probably have a more egalitarian society today. Being a hard edged absolutist and unable to see in shades of gray and take into account the prejudices and circumstamces of the time period does not make you correct. Especially as all of your posts (apart from quickly googling a definition) have been very low effort and provided no candidate for who you would say is better, even though the other poster asked you for one several posts ago. Try being constructive instead of destructive, if you even know how.

I've only responded to you one other time here and let most of this go but this comment is absolutely heinous. "Runs equally"? That's just disgusting. Drag queens walk around with a target on their back for this kind of thing nowadays partially because of people playing devil's advocate or whatever this is that you're doing here. All three of the people in your stories were charged and fired, if employed. The church protects these clergymen from the consequences of their crimes and they're held in high regard, generally. The worst they have to worry about is kids cracking jokes they probably won't hear anyway. I don't care if you're an engineer or what your deal is but this comment is just problematic and your whole attitude isn't convincing me that you would be much better in a different context.

He's not wrong. It pays much more to be on the political right because it affords more of soieties' resources to large corporations and/or their CEOs, which is of course who pays lobbyists. Being more left means trying to get more money distributed to the poorest echelons of society, which is of course not very lucrative for everyone else.

Then shut up and stop commenting lol. Don't "fix them" then.

Personal responsibility has been an excellent tool for large corporations who make deliberate business decisions causing their manufacturing process to be worse for workers and the environment. Belief in personal responsibility as a serious value is what allowed a scam like recycling to be knowingly pushed by polluters for decades as a consumer-driven solution that requires little to no work from producers even though most products can't be recycled anyway and recycling is, in fact, not a solution to anything in and of itself.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily that too many people shouldn't have a voice. Just that too many of the people who shouldn't have much of a voice or any at all are the ones who really want to have one, often times.

It seems the difference is in how people are allowed to interpret the law. Before you had to be both on someone's land ("real property") as well as in (or at least approaching with intent) some kind of domicile fit for habitation. Now, with the wording being changed to "or", a person who owns several acres could shoot someone for just cutting through the property without the landowner having any reasonable expectation that the trespassers even knew they were on land that is privately owned and certainly without the impression that the trespassers were approaching their actual domicile that's been inspected and zoned for habitation.

I hope you one day get to live "wontonly" as you'd like to. Then maybe you too can die in the street, addicted to drugs. Either way, maybe you'll spell wantonly right the next time you try to use a semi-large word while trying to sound like a blowhard intellectual.

Not all that strange, just go by a planned parenthood and check out the crazies accosting people outside of those.

"Rational people grow out of far left academia" - what a provable statement this person said. Certainly doesn't sound made up in the moment they were writing the comment.

Double response to the same post. Unnecessary.

Maybe if you were a bit less defensive and aggressive someone would've informed you that it's actually spelled "pansy fucks" and you would be able to more successfully insult and fear those you don't understand.

Man you must really hate jokes.