*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I literally googled "define outrage" and it's the second of three definitions. The fact you can show me another definition only serves to demonstrate that words can have more than one distinct meaning.

Not sure where you got that from, is it an actual dictionary?

I suppose maybe the word's meaning is gradually changing into what you claim to mean by it because it was never ambivalent to me; it always meant being shocked and angry about something. But now that people are posting videos about something being "devastating" or someone being "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "outraged" when they really mean something much milder, then that can affect how people interpret the word as being something softer than its literal definition.

[OngBonga]

Not sure where you got that from, is it an actual dictionary?

I suppose maybe the word's meaning is gradually changing into what you claim to mean by it because it was never ambivalent to me; it always meant being shocked and angry about something. But now that people are posting videos about something being "devastating" or someone being "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "outraged" when they really mean something much milder, then that can affect how people interpret the word as being something softer than its literal definition.

It's not that it's changing, more that it's not rigid. There's nothing wrong with your use of the word "outrage" in the context of shouting at walls, that's a correct use of the word. But if I'm disgusted by something and speak out, I am showing outrage, so my use of the word is also perfectly acceptable.

[Poopadoop]

It's not that it's changing, more that it's not rigid. There's nothing wrong with your use of the word "outrage" in the context of shouting at walls, that's a correct use of the word. But if I'm disgusted by something and speak out, I am showing outrage, so my use of the word is also perfectly acceptable.

I didn't know you could make up your own definitions for words. But apparently, people on the internet can so why not you too.

[OngBonga]

I didn't know you could make up your own definitions for words. But apparently, people on the internet can so why not you too.

But that isn't what's happening. Have you actually tried googling it? Google doesn't make definitions up, it sources dictionaries.

[Poopadoop]

And Johnson and Starmer are a pretty good comparison for how much corruption there is in politics, and how dependent on the individual it is. I don't know why you're bringing up Blair, he hasn't been PM for fifteen years or something.

Basically, there's a continuum of corruption. Guys on one end won't take graft even if they know they can get away with it. Guys in the middle will take it if it seems safe. Guys on the other end go out looking for it.

Starmer's close to the good end of that spectrum. There's virtually nothing that comes close to being dirt on him, and he's the leader of a major party and subject to a lot of scrutiny, so you know they've been looking. Johnson OTOH is on the bad end. He goes out looking for it and doesn't even seem to care if he gets found out. That's why he's had three parliamentary investigations going on into his shady shit in the last two years. No wonder he's always trying to defend others in his party from accusations lol.

So yeah, given a choice between the two, I might rather have a beer with the funny clown guy Boris, but I'd rather put my trust in boring old Starmer to run the country. They're not the same, not even close.