|
Luigi Thirty posted:
Yeah I stopped at the first plebeian. If I know anything from /mu/, its that anyone who uses that is obviously a troll.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Plebeian is actually perfect here, because it's an example of a society in which no matter how hard your work, it's your birth that determines your rank and not your personal merits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
People should ask him about a.little book calls "the Bible" that calls for wealth redistribution. Does he think the Bible isn't culturally relevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
 Cross posting this from the social media thread. Dude who posted this on his wall is a 4channer. I know he goes to /k/, cause he did so at work. Probably goes to /pol/ as well. It's just further evidence that the right will forever not understand why they lose votes. A black man was elected president!? Clearly it was based on demographics and affirmative action and not the fact that his platform actually appealed to more people than the GOPs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Remember during the 2012 election when Romney said that running for the Presidency would be easier if he was Latino. They will never, under any circumstances recognise white male privilige, but think the privilige of everyone else is totally unfair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
'Americans are so dumb that they'll vote for someone based on what they look like instead of what they stand for.' -Thomas Sowell drat, if Fabio hadn't been born in Italy, we might've been able to say 'Hey, remember when our President was insanely handsome?'
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:'Americans are so dumb that they'll vote for someone based on what they look like instead of what they stand for.' -Thomas Sowell If Americans actually had the time and processing power to look at voting records and budgets and policies instead of personalities, hoo boy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Yo you guys want facebook comment on the NYT? edit: oh here's a doozy from Jennifer Graham quote:You fail to see the purpose in bringing this up, over and over. No one alive now has a time machine to go back and right wrongs from 1,000 years ago. We all went to high school, so we don't need the smug history lesson. This is the moral equivalency argument that liberals and the media make because god forbid you criticize any thing that brown people do. This is Naziism all over again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:drat, if Fabio hadn't been born in Italy, we might've been able to say 'Hey, remember when our President was insanely handsome?' Isn't that what JFK was for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Isn't that what JFK was for? I dunno, I think Barack Obama actually looks pretty good for his age and workload. And if we're talking about him when he was younger? poo poo yeah, I'd have lit up with that guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:There are 112 different and valid ways to spell Muammar Gaddafi, if you want to go for 1980s-vintage SNL jokes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:The whole article is just a massive helping of JustWorldFallacy.txt. It's such a concentration of that cliche I don't even know what else to say. He apparently hasn't even considered that the right might not all be Self-Made Ubermenchen or the poor might not all be Lazy Whiners. Pussygeneration.txt
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:The whole article is just a massive helping of JustWorldFallacy.txt. It's such a concentration of that cliche I don't even know what else to say. He apparently hasn't even considered that the right might not all be Self-Made Ubermenchen or the poor might not all be Lazy Whiners. By getting punched in the face http://elitedaily.com/money/entrepreneurship/how-to-live-a-successful-life-embrace-the-struggle/ And peddling toxic masculinity based personal training packages http://chadhowsefitness.com/ (Fight Club: still relevant after all these years.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
A friend of mine poster on her facebook about seeing Fifty Shades in theaters and this was the very first reply. It may be the first time I've seen "ARE TROOPS" in the wild. I assumed it was satire until my friend confirmed that this person actually talks like this all the time. I feel like I need to add this person on my facebook soley for more thread content 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:You fail to see the purpose in bringing this up, over and over. No one alive now has a time machine to go back and right wrongs from 1,000 years ago. We all went to high school, so we don't need the smug history lesson. This is the moral equivalency argument that liberals and the media make because god forbid you criticize any thing that brown people do. This is Naziism all over again. Yes because Naziism was all about championing the cause of minorities or anybody else "of color"... Remember when that Christian extremist gunned down that abortion clinic? If it would have been a Muslim, it would have been deemed at "terrorist attack" instead of "a mental nutjob killing in the name of God". And there are people that I work with who legitimately defended what he did as morally acceptable...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Can you guess what's wrong with this statement? Ben Carson Calls For No Rules In War Also this BS: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
My word. More packages than a UPS truck.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Yes because Naziism was all about championing the cause of minorities or anybody else "of color"... 'We don't need a history lesson!' *proceeds to display a complete and utter ignorance of what fascism was* Chimera-gui posted:Can you guess what's wrong with this statement? Ben Carson Calls For No Rules In War *note: prior military experience does not count as real military experience if the candidate is not a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Chimera-gui posted:Can you guess what's wrong with this statement? Ben Carson Calls For No Rules In War
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
ErIog posted:My word. More packages than a UPS truck. Anti-g suits like that have built in support, since you really don't want anything flopping about while you're trying to pilot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Chimera-gui posted:Can you guess what's wrong with this statement? Ben Carson Calls For No Rules In War the man with the X over his head is Hitler VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
If your objective is to create a militarist state which prospers via an unending war against its neighbors then requiring military service before serving in political office is certainly a good idea. It worked for Rome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Except veterans who actually saw some poo poo tend to be a lot more skittish and cautious about perpetual unnecessary war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Except veterans who actually saw some poo poo tend to be a lot more skittish and cautious about perpetual unnecessary war. Because they're Communist pussies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Except veterans who actually saw some poo poo tend to be a lot more skittish and cautious about perpetual unnecessary war. The definition of "unnecessary" gets a little fluid. Eisenhower jumped right into Korea, JFK leapt into Vietnam and was a nuthair away from WWIII. GHWB ran into Kuwait. I'll omit GWB since the harrowing tales of the Air National Guard is unfairly discounted as "not having seen poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Chimera-gui posted:Also this BS: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
I think that's still the most infuriating image in all of politics to me to this day. Even that stupid smug baby meme isn't as bad (and it's bad). It just so obviously demonstrates how they don't give a gently caress about the "support our troops" poo poo they spout: it's a political tool, dumped by the wayside when it's convenient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
I think the most obvious way (other than the concept being disgusting) to throw a wrench into someone's poo poo when they claim that they only want a president who has military experience, is just throw out some of the many reasons an otherwise healthy person can be disqualified from joining. http://navy.army.com/info/join/medical Should you be banned from any chance of being president if you're missing a finger from a childhood accident? You have a bad peanut allergy or bee allergy? Deaf in one ear or blind in one eye? Bad car crash and you have a replacement hip? What else should military service be a requirement for? Should any of those conditions ban you from being in congress? Also, I'm career military, and I'd like to know what people who post poo poo like that mean when they say "military service." Do they mean any military service? Someone with deployments to an actual combat zone? An actual combat veteran? I don't think most people realize just what a small sliver of the american military actually is engaged in violence during their service, even during the past decade plus of war. Obviously if you're going to use bush in the image macro, you're setting the bar low. I'm obviously thinking about this way too much, I know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
This is from the last two or three pages, but yes, Lincoln was the worst President. He jailed people for just expressing certain beliefs, he defied the Supreme Court, he was literally a military dictator who ran a single-party (the National Union Party) state that killed its own citizens. His job was to protect the Constitution and the citizens of the United States of America and he trampled over it and murdered his own people. However, Lincoln did two things: 1. Kept the country together 2. Effectively ended slavery I honestly think we have been stronger as a country together than apart, and slavery was an unmitigated evil. My grandmother's grandfather fought in the Army of Northern Virginia, and lost his two brothers, and I think they and plenty of others were worth it to end slavery. The Confederacy was founded on slavery, existed only to promote the interests of slave-owners, and anything else is complete bullshit. Basically I think of Lincoln's presidency the same way I think of the work done by people in a slaughterhouse. I don't like what we do to animals, I think they're more intelligent than we give them credit for, and today's industrialized production processes are way more cruel than they need to be. I never want to actually see the inside of a meat packing facility, ever. However, I'm still going to eat burgers and fried chicken. So if I'm going to engage in that behavior I have to accept the system as it is. I feel the same about the results of the Civil War and the actions of Lincoln in particular. I still feel that he did some horrible things that should not be applauded or emulated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Except veterans who actually saw some poo poo tend to be a lot more skittish and cautious about perpetual unnecessary war. What about McCain?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:This is from the last two or three pages, but yes, Lincoln was the worst President. He jailed people for just expressing certain beliefs, he defied the Supreme Court, he was literally a military dictator who ran a single-party (the National Union Party) state that killed its own citizens. Even granted that, I still don't know if that puts him below Andrew Jackson. Genocide's pretty hard to beat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Idran posted:Even granted that, I still don't know if that puts him below Andrew Jackson. Genocide's pretty hard to beat. Lincoln was also not the best on indian affairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Idran posted:Even granted that, I still don't know if that puts him below Andrew Jackson. Genocide's pretty hard to beat. But Jackson is clearly in the Chaotic Neutral square!  
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Technically you could also make the argument that a head of state's first duty is to the state and its citizens, and gently caress everybody else. It's a rather distasteful viewpoint and not one that I would advocate taking to the extremes of genocide, but if you're arguing about someone's worth as a head of state and not a human being, it's probably more technically correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:The definition of "unnecessary" gets a little fluid. Eisenhower jumped right into Korea, JFK leapt into Vietnam and was a nuthair away from WWIII. GHWB ran into Kuwait. I'll omit GWB since the harrowing tales of the Air National Guard is unfairly discounted as "not having seen poo poo." Eisenhower jumped way the hell out of Korea. It went from July 1950 to July 1953. Eisenhower didn't take office until Jan 1953 and within 6 months there was a signed negotiated ceasefire. And while JFK may have started some involvement in Vietnam, he ordered in a presence that was several orders of magnitude smaller than what ended up happening after his death. And considering RFK's anti-war stance (and his insistence that his brother wouldn't have supported this policy) there's no reason to assume Kennedy would have done what Johnson ended up doing. Vietnam troop levels by year: 
Cpt.Americant fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
mirepoix posted:I think the most obvious way (other than the concept being disgusting) to throw a wrench into someone's poo poo when they claim that they only want a president who has military experience, is just throw out some of the many reasons an otherwise healthy person can be disqualified from joining. Yeah, I know a guy who did several years in the Air Force and spent basically his entire military career working in a pretty ordinary office cubicle thousands of miles away from any conflict zone, never firing a gun outside of a target range for his entire time in service, but something tells me he'd be held up as a genuine war hero if he suddenly decided to join the Republican Party and run for office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Chimera-gui posted:Can you guess what's wrong with this statement? Ben Carson Calls For No Rules In War only if they understand the need to keep The Confederacy trapped 'neath a union bootheel I'm not votin' for no closet secessionist like Hancock, no matter how many Gettysburgs he won. I would rather vote for a hundred fat yankee oligarchs. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:People should ask him about a.little book calls "the Bible" that calls for wealth redistribution. Does he think the Bible isn't culturally relevant. Unless someone is a very public and avowed Christian, or is already talking about basing policy on the Bible in a specific argument, I find it's best to avoid invoking the Bible as a gotcha in terms of moral economic policy. At this point, there are a lot of libertarians and conservatives who will sidestep these arguments really smugly by saying they're not religious. I've even seen people I know to be at least somewhat religious sidestep the matter this way, which is hilarious because it's virtually the same as Peter denying Jesus but they do it to, uh, avoid confronting cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Yeah, I know a guy who did several years in the Air Force and spent basically his entire military career working in a pretty ordinary office cubicle thousands of miles away from any conflict zone, never firing a gun outside of a target range for his entire time in service, but something tells me he'd be held up as a genuine war hero if he suddenly decided to join the Republican Party and run for office. Isn't that pretty much what Nixon did?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Tucker Doubt is a buddy of mine who's also a musician and has a bunch of musician friends, some of whom are apparently completely insane. The second to last comment is really the icing on the cake.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 14:52
|
|
