|
Trabisnikof posted:It proves someone is drunk on a Wednesday. Catholics are known for their love of the drink! Way to win on Social Justice points "Everybody but me is a Racist" Trab.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Catholics are known for their love of the drink! Way to win on Social Justice points "Everybody but me is a Racist" Trab. I'm not talking about Catholics, I'm talking about you. You should probably cut back before posting as you clearly can't read the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what I thought, you're inventing poo poo Shbobdb. I haven't said anything in this thread today that I need to apologize for. I was, in fact, coming to Nancy Pelosi's defense, against what appeared to be an attack on her and her family on the basis that it's large, and you doubling-down on that attack by suggesting her large family meant she was a secret Mormon (your edit of that post notwithstanding, since it was made after I responded). Pelosi should not be criticized for having a large family, because having a big family is not a bad thing. However, the fact that her family is Catholic is relevant, in that it may explain that her family size is more typical than one might think, if one didn't know she was Catholic. What I said wasn't remotely bigoted and you're just thrashing around trying to prove that it was, completely oblivious to the degree to which you are making yourself look like a tremendous rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not talking about Catholics, I'm talking about you. You should probably cut back before posting. Why? As an unrepentant "BernieBro" offering leftist critiques of Hillary I was "always wrong" because my vision was clearly wrong and Hillary was going to win. I was labeled a racist and a bigot for the most petty of reasons. When someone is actually expressing bigotry in Trump's America, shouldn't we, as a woke space, recognize that and try to understand to not be insanely anti-Catholic (D&D is crazy anti-Catholic, BTW)? The answer is evidently "no" because the Catholic voice doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah, that's what I thought, you're inventing poo poo Shbobdb. I haven't said anything in this thread today that I need to apologize for. I was, in fact, coming to Nancy Pelosi's defense, against what appeared to be an attack on her and her family on the basis that it's large, and you doubling-down on that attack by suggesting her large family meant she was a secret Mormon (your edit of that post notwithstanding, since it was made after I responded). I like the secret edit to the secret mormon. How deep does the conspiracy go Leperflesh? I'm glad you are doing the whole whiteboy "What I said wasn't bigoted" bit. It's a good lesson for everyone to see. You've always been a class enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Nobody was being "insanely anti-catholic" or even anti-catholic in the slightest. And I'm not representative of D&D - this is the only D&D thread I post in, and I only even know about this one because it used to be in a different subforum and got moved here. I was also a Bernie supporter, if that matters to you. I don't see how that's at all relevant to this particular discussion, though. We absolutely should be a "woke space" as you put it, and absolutely should respond to racism and bigotry. On the other hand, we should not viciously attack someone for posting a fact - and not even using that fact as some form of criticism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I like the secret edit to the secret mormon. How deep does the conspiracy go Leperflesh? Shbobdb posted:Despite my edit, I have to ask, are you anti-Catholic? Because I've been banned for much less. Holy loving poo poo. quote:I'm glad you are doing the whole whiteboy "What I said wasn't bigoted" bit. It's a good lesson for everyone to see. class enemy, that's a good one. Tell me more about my class, and the classes I'm fighting. You don't know anything about me, Shbobdb. The discussions I've engaged in in this thread have been extremely limited. It would seem you're claiming that if anyone makes any sort of defense against an accusation of racism, that's automatically invalid. Is that what you're intending to say? Or... only if it's a "whiteboy"? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:class enemy, that's a good one. Tell me more about my class, and the classes I'm fighting. You don't know anything about me, Shbobdb. The discussions I've engaged in in this thread have been extremely limited. Meanwhile, for context, Shbobdb opposed prop 55.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Really? Wait, I assumed I was a "class enemy" against the lower classes, but maybe I've got it backwards. Is a Bernie Bro accusing me of class warfare against the upper classes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Really? $250k a year is not upper class enough is the argument as much as I remember. Got to have a vanguard afterall. Having been admonished earlier, I'm certainly not looking up the posts in particular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Ahhhh, right, I vaguely remember that. I guess if you think people who make $250k are rich in a region where the median income is still below $100k, you're a class warrior. e. I don't know how to reconcile that with being a Bernie Bro, though. Bernie definitely supports higher taxes on the wealthy, and he'd definitely draw that line well below $250k/yr. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:class enemy, that's a good one. Tell me more about my class, and the classes I'm fighting. You don't know anything about me, Shbobdb. The discussions I've engaged in in this thread have been extremely limited. You changed your post, that was the "secret edit". I was just making a converso "joke" because you are in a seriously problematic space. I apologize if I came on heavy. You've engaged in some serious character assassination against me before so I figured you could take as good as you got. I'll keep that in mind in the future and promise to always disagree with you while typing one handed. As for Trab, ignore them. They are a Hillbot who sees a racist in every shadow. Dekulakization is one of the greatest mistakes of the Soviet Union and Trab demands that leftists repeat that chapter as a means to prevent real progress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Holy poo poo lmao, just listen to his custom title for gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
How about responding to what I actually said, instead of what you think I said?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Look, everyone falls for Shbobdb the first time, just appreciate the execution and walk away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Just popping in to say you guys should join the California National Party now back to your scheduled Hillary Socialist meltdown or whatever is happening here!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Goddamn what the hell is baby-mans problem? Anyway, how realistic id Brown's whole "we'll launch our drat satellites!". Is that something CA could realistically do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
themrguy posted:Goddamn what the hell is baby-mans problem? No idea what the laws are around states launching their own sattelites, but California certainly has the money and manpower to do it if they really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Yeah, but it's also unlikely. If the US actually stopped its extensive weather satellite program, most likely the EU and other launch-capable nations (which include Japan, China, and India as major players) would step up. Although going from initial planning to actual launch takes many years, so there'd still be this horrible gap in coverage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
haha seriously tho, catholics are agents of the vatican and cannot be trusted
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:haha seriously tho, catholics are agents of the vatican and cannot be trusted lapsed catholic here, can confirm that the Catholic plan for America and California is
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
drat, they got to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Sydin posted:No idea what the laws are around states launching their own sattelites, but California certainly has the money and manpower to do it if they really wanted to. As much as I would love a full-fledged CA space program, my guess is that the more likely option would be CA providing some funding to support current satellites and to subcontract future launches out to SpaceX.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Didn't Gov. Brown literally get his nickname from proposing the same thing 40 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Shbdomb (sp?) has revitalized this thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah, but it's also unlikely. If the US actually stopped its extensive weather satellite program, most likely the EU and other launch-capable nations (which include Japan, China, and India as major players) would step up. Although going from initial planning to actual launch takes many years, so there'd still be this horrible gap in coverage. Well yeah I doubt we'd actually do it, just saying we have the resources if we actually took the plunge. Could probably poach plenty of NASA scientists still interested in climate science, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Private companies, many of them based in CA, launch commercial satellite all the time. I'm sure they could put a weather-focused payload on a satellite for the right amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Yeah, like, many of the largest commercial satellite operations are based in California. Lockheed's main satellite division is in Sunnyvale, there's Space Systems Loral there too, and I think a lot more based down south. Technology and know-how aren't the problem. The problem is money. Your average satellite launch costs between $40 million and $70 million. That's the price to launch, not build. NOAA currently operates 8 satellites. So that would cost between $320M and and $560M just to launch. California's environmental protection budget is about $3.2 billion, so launching our own satellites would eat up as much as 18% of that. Of course, the thing about the environmental protection budget is that it's mostly bond and special funds, which are usually slated for specific things and which can't be moved around. The general fund is $88 million, so we'd have enough to launch one satellite if we did nothing else. I appreciate Brown's sentiment, but starting a California EPA at the level of what we're losing is not even remotely feasible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
I'd imagine a lot of that shortfall could be made up from withholding Federal outlays, but lol Civil War 2
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
What we really need to do is get rid of the bloated government and let the free market, or possibly government-free market hybrid systems handle important things like space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Maybe we could team up with the other Pacific states and build 3 satellites a year!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
So one thing that is occasionally brought up when discussing California standing up to the federal government is the federal government cutting off highway funding to California. How feasible would it be for California to supply that funding itself? I feel as though a temporary tax increase in order to fund our state in spite of the feds could pass if it was sold to the voters well. And if California could supply its own highway funding, what else could the federal government do to dick over California and could we deal with those things as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:So one thing that is occasionally brought up when discussing California standing up to the federal government is the federal government cutting off highway funding to California. How feasible would it be for California to supply that funding itself? I feel as though a temporary tax increase in order to fund our state in spite of the feds could pass if it was sold to the voters well. And if California could supply its own highway funding, what else could the federal government do to dick over California and could we deal with those things as well? ACA subsidies and Medicaid payments. Especially if the Republicans in the house are successful at turning Medicaid into a block grant as opposed to an entitlement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
My excitement is now tempered by a trump administration. sincx posted:That opinion doesn't mince words: You don't see words nonsense in many orders. incoherent fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Moving on to LA\LA County http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/506643217/mistrial-declared-in-corruption-case-against-former-l-a-sheriff-lee-baca quote:Baca had initially pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about corruption and prisoner abuse in the county jail he oversaw, but this summer he changed his mind and rejected a plea deal. Fucker knew he'd get a deadlocked jury. It doesn't matter if you shoot someone in the back or enable systematic corruption in a jail system, jury is going to loving hang every time. quote:The Los Angeles Times reported that prosecutors argued during the trial "that Baca resented the FBI's efforts to investigate his jails and believed 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
CAGOP continues to be a trash barge, but a good thing happened!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Damnit 2016, why you gotta be such an rear end in a top hat of a year?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Sutter noooooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
I'm legitimately worried what the next 12 hours will bring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:42
|
|
