|
Nice.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:06 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 01:11 |
|
Really catches the Polish movie poster vibe, good job Time
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:12 |
|
Can't wait to see more MEDIA MEAN tweets and political cartoons from that cover.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:15 |
|
Little trivia: 77 years and 7 months in between Time's greatest covers.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:16 |
|
Grundulum posted:Source your quotes. Which one of washingtonsblog, beforeitsnews, theflippintruth, or therussophile did you scrape this from? Looks like it's on Washington's Blog too! It's spreading.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:29 |
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:34 |
|
Jesus Christ, it's not even september yet and he is already melting down. I didn't think it would that soon. Please don't drop out before the debates, please please please
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:38 |
|
Fetishistic.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:39 |
|
Stereotype posted:Yeah I also hate people who insist that not only is weed not bad, it is actually very good!! Drugs aren't good for anyone, but alcohol is CLEARLY terrible for everyone (very probably worse than weed) and I'm pretty sure we learned in 1933 that trying to stop people from getting hosed up doesn't work. so let me get this straight weed isn't bad or good, it just is...maaaan? you sound like a loving stoner moron (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:44 |
|
rscott posted:I think this checks out Listen, during WW2 America had the "Silvershirts". Obviously Trumps would be like that only better and more luxurious in every single way. He'd have the Gold shirts!
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:51 |
|
Weed is good.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:53 |
|
I wish I had Photoshop skills strong enough to change "TIME" into "NICE" on that cover.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:53 |
|
Best quote from the article: quote:“On other campaigns, we would have to scrounge for crumbs,” says a senior Clinton adviser. “Here, it’s a fire hose. He can set himself on fire at breakfast, kill a nun at lunch and waterboard a puppy in the afternoon. And that doesn’t even get us to prime time.”
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:56 |
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Weed is good. At the very least, we should all be able to agree it is not as bad as alcohol.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 13:57 |
|
Grundulum posted:Thanks for bringing this up. It seemed like far and away the shakiest part of the majority's opinion when I read through as EwokEntourage requested. It reads like something a child might try: "Go clean your room" "You didn't specify whether I had to clean my desk and/or the floor, so technically by cleaning my desk I did what you asked". Yea I'm sure they pulled a well known cannon of construction and a 25 year old Supreme Court case out of the air to base their decision on. Also lol at complaining that a loving federal appeals court is "rules lawyering".
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:01 |
|
How do you as a politician respond to Trump's "Obama and Hillary founded ISIS, repeat x3" in any way besides "these are the ramblings of a crazy person and we hope Donald gets professional help soon"? I know there isn't anyone on the R side with principles, so how are they trying to spin it instead?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:05 |
|
roymorrison posted:so let me get this straight weed isn't bad or good, it just is...maaaan? Maybe look inward with the insults
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:09 |
|
Great, now I want a grilled cheese sandwich.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:11 |
|
EwokEntourage posted:Yea I'm sure they pulled a well known cannon of construction and a 25 year old Supreme Court case out of the air to base their decision on. You're defending telcos who are upset that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Like sending you to the gulag is out of the question, I banish you to 10 years of calling up Comcast customer support.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:14 |
|
Phone posted:You're defending telcos who are upset that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Did you know that laws can be dumb and bad but also legal? And that it is the job of the courts to decide what is legal, not what is good?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:20 |
|
AmiYumi posted:How do you as a politician respond to Trump's "Obama and Hillary founded ISIS, repeat x3" in any way besides "these are the ramblings of a crazy person and we hope Donald gets professional help soon"? I know there isn't anyone on the R side with principles, so how are they trying to spin it instead? "He was clearly talking about their policies," is already the Very Serious Both Sides MSM response. Nevermind that we should absolutely not give Trump the benefit of context.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:23 |
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"He was clearly talking about their policies," is already the Very Serious Both Sides MSM response. I had an argument with a friend that is always giving Trump the benefit of the doubt despite not wanting him to win about the Second Amendment thing and how he didn't mean anything that bad. It's frustrating since like with these MSM guys you aren't allowed to bring up anything Trump or his supporters have said previously. Everything is its own isolated statement and putting his comments in the larger context (where you have his campaign guys saying Hillary should be executed via firing squad and the thirty years of right wing threats of violence against her) is connecting dots that aren't there. I mean if you just look at every individual word trump says independent of the sentence they are in he's not saying anything bad!
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:27 |
|
EwokEntourage posted:Yea I'm sure they pulled a well known cannon of construction and a 25 year old Supreme Court case out of the air to base their decision on. I don't have a problem with the test that the Circuit Court applied; I just think it was incorrectly applied. It is crystal clear to me that a directive to promote infrastructure investment makes no distinction between public and private ventures (absent some context elsewhere, which I did not notice in the opinion), in the same sense that a law saying that car headlights must be functional clearly applies to both the left and right headlight. The claim of "rules lawyering" is that in order to arrive at their conclusion, the court had to invent ambiguity in the text almost out of whole cloth. Edit to add: under the court's reasoning, how can we be sure that the FCC is even supposed to promote private infrastructure investment? It doesn't explicitly say "private" in section 706, so it must not be allowed! Grundulum fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Aug 11, 2016 |
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:28 |
Jimbozig posted:Did you know that laws can be dumb and bad but also legal? And that it is the job of the courts to decide what is legal, not what is good? And preemption isn't something that should be taken lightly or applied liberally.
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:30 |
|
My favorite thing about Trump supporters is they don't know they're losing.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:32 |
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"He was clearly talking about their policies," is already the Very Serious Both Sides MSM response. Don't worry, Trump decided to Double Down x2 on it. https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/763726772278099968
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:33 |
|
greatn posted:My favorite thing about Trump supporters is they don't know they're losing. Oh, they know that they're losing. They're just that dril tweet in physical form. E: that dril tweet https://twitter.com/dril/status/134787490526658561
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:34 |
|
Shifty Pony posted:And preemption isn't something that should be taken lightly or applied liberally. Actually it should be. States rights should be crushed like a bug under a boot.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:34 |
|
FAUXTON posted:I wish I had Photoshop skills strong enough to change "TIME" into "NICE" on that cover. So do I, but I tried anyway
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:35 |
|
greatn posted:My favorite thing about Trump supporters is they don't know they're losing. I'm hoping for some pics along the lines of White People Mourning Romney, or the stories about the cancelled fireworks and lack of a concession speech. Just no riots or anything please.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:36 |
|
WampaLord posted:Don't worry, Trump decided to Double Down x2 on it.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:37 |
|
New Doomguy lookin good
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:38 |
|
FAUXTON posted:I wish I had Photoshop skills strong enough to change "TIME" into "NICE" on that cover. Anything else I can do to put off actually doing work for another five min? e: fb
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:41 |
|
Phone posted:Oh, they know that they're losing. They're just that dril tweet in physical form. "im informed! im informed!!", i continue to insist as i slowly shrink and transform into a trump supporter
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:43 |
|
I'm hoping for something along the lines of that one YouTube video showing a blurry crowd of Romney supporters moaning and wailing Dante's Inferno style (can't find it ATM).
AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Aug 11, 2016 |
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:44 |
|
The DEA isn't going to reclassify pot this year, but immediately after they announced that Obama said he is gonna use YOUR TAX DOLLARS to grow ganja. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/science/obama-administration-set-to-remove-barrier-to-marijuana-research.html quote:Obama Administration Set to Remove Barrier to Marijuana Research
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:45 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The DEA isn't going to reclassify pot this year, but immediately after they announced that Obama said he is gonna use YOUR TAX DOLLARS to grow ganja. This fits Obama's MO pretty well, so I"m not surprised. There was never any chance of reclassification this close to a presidential election anyway. The timing of them say "lol nah" is a little unfortunate but no one is really going to care all that much in a month.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:49 |
|
WampaLord posted:Don't worry, Trump decided to Double Down x2 on it.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:51 |
|
Grundulum posted:I don't have a problem with the test that the Circuit Court applied; I just think it was incorrectly applied. It is crystal clear to me that a directive to promote infrastructure investment makes no distinction between public and private ventures (absent some context elsewhere, which I did not notice in the opinion), in the same sense that a law saying that car headlights must be functional clearly applies to both the left and right headlight. The claim of "rules lawyering" is that in order to arrive at their conclusion, the court had to invent ambiguity in the text almost out of whole cloth. They don't have to find a clear statement for what it does or doesn't allow or require. They just have to see if there is a clear statement for what the fcc wants to do. If you say 2+2=6, I don't have to tell you what it really equals to say you are wrong. To preempt a traditional state right, such as home rule, it must be a clear intention of congress to do so. The 1996 act doesn't have this clear statement. Sorry. quote:Furthermore, nowhere in the general charge to “promote competition in the telecommunications market” is a directive to do so by preempting a state’s allocation of powers between itself and its subdivisions. Also bitch all you want. Internet/telco should be a regulated public utility, but it isn't. Laws aren't invalid because they interfere if your full communism now fantasies
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:52 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 01:11 |
|
Jimbozig posted:Did you know that laws can be dumb and bad but also legal? And that it is the job of the courts to decide what is legal, not what is good? the latter is actually exactly what courts decide in this day and age, do you not understand politics or something
|
# ? Aug 11, 2016 14:58 |