Neo_Crimson posted:

Gets me every time.

Is that Nazi version of Patreon still aroun? They'll take him.

pseudanonymous posted:

What is egg milk? Or eggmilk.

BarbarianElephant posted:

Nearly as "ironically" edgy as an alt-right poster circa 2015.

Ague Proof posted:

Milo has posted a response to his Patreon and Twitter, with an ad for his next book.

Giggy posted:

I believe doctors should be able to prescribe Heroin to patients and addicts though.

Neo_Crimson posted:

Gets me every time.

Is that Nazi version of Patreon still aroun? They'll take him.

Tayter Swift posted:

Please tell me it's called GoFundYourself

Serfer posted:

They might not be able to prescrible heroin, but they can prescribe fentanyl.

"Common opiates available by prescription include: codeine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, methadone, morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tapentadol. All of these agents are classified as Schedule II narcotics by the DEA."

Tayter Swift posted:

Please tell me it's called GoFundYourself

Uncleanly Cleric posted:

Is it wrong that I'm really excited for the metapost where you use this gif to call someone an idiot?

Koalas Massacre posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meMMJ3dwtmI

Phobic Nest posted:

ABC News displaying impressive cropping skills in their reaction shots and videos at Bush's funeral. You'd never know that Donald was in the same pew, glowering just offscreen to the left.

Chilichimp posted:

Who is Meelo?

nine-gear crow posted:

God willing this is how his presidency will be treated writ large. Just cropped out of the left frame of history itself. President Asterisk.

Chilichimp posted:

Who is Meelo?

The Glumslinger posted:

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1070289833837379584

Koalas Massacre posted:

Who is Tammy Lawrence??

selec posted:

The only thing that will stop or slow the opiate epidemic is a radical restructuring of our society and economy. Life expectancy is dropping for some demographics in this country, almost exclusively in rural areas. It’s because they’re poor and have no prospects. If they were not poor and had prospects, the problem would solve itself. It’s literally that simple: people become addicts to alleviate the boredom and misery of their day to day lives. If you give them something more compelling, they get their usage under control on their own, typically. Rehab doesn’t work if the person comes out clean and lands in the same situation that drove them to use in the first place.

But because we can’t speak honestly about how we got here and who oversaw the crisis we’ve made, we can’t address root causes. It sounds counterintuitive but it’s true; the way we chose to deal with the economic collapse of 08 drove an enormous spike in usage, because the way we dealt with it didn’t ameliorate the suffering of the people hardest hit.

But that honest discussion ain’t happening, so let’s at least let people that we can’t admit were born to die in poverty do so in a fashion of their choosing.

Koalas Massacre posted:

Who is Tammy Lawrence??

Calaveron posted:

Nope, it has to be a big loving deal touted constantly, let it serve as a warning or a landmark moment that this is when poo poo just failed because of these people

TulliusCicero posted:

Trump's base are a lot of people who "claim to be religous", because their "religion" helps them create their insane world view.

They actually believe in nothing but their own superiority.

selec posted:

The only thing that will stop or slow the opiate epidemic is a radical restructuring of our society and economy. Life expectancy is dropping for some demographics in this country, almost exclusively in rural areas. It’s because they’re poor and have no prospects. If they were not poor and had prospects, the problem would solve itself. It’s literally that simple: people become addicts to alleviate the boredom and misery of their day to day lives. If you give them something more compelling, they get their usage under control on their own, typically. Rehab doesn’t work if the person comes out clean and lands in the same situation that drove them to use in the first place.

But because we can’t speak honestly about how we got here and who oversaw the crisis we’ve made, we can’t address root causes. It sounds counterintuitive but it’s true; the way we chose to deal with the economic collapse of 08 drove an enormous spike in usage, because the way we dealt with it didn’t ameliorate the suffering of the people hardest hit.

But that honest discussion ain’t happening, so let’s at least let people that we can’t admit were born to die in poverty do so in a fashion of their choosing.

GyroNinja posted:

These people are the majority of American (White) Christians though.



People focus on how 80% of Evangelicals voted Trump, but he also won ~60% of white Catholics and Protestants in general.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/rat-park/

plogo posted:

Pure speculation and coming from a China bear in the first place, but Jim Chanos (famed short seller) is speculating China could retaliate by messing with Sheldon Adelson's Macau business.

https://twitter.com/WallStCynic/status/1070467598704394241

VitalSigns posted:

So the plan is what, keep bombing the Middle East until they run completely out of people, because that's the only way you're reducing the number of terrorists by blowing up weddings and cafes.

E: Also do you notice that your argument is essentially "yeah ok they have valid reasons for attacking us, let's give them 1,000 reasons more"

Skex posted:

Skex posted:

The reason they use drones now is that they are more precise than the previous options. The use of drones has likely reduced the number of casualties because they can be used with more precision than other options. Now it's all easy for us to sit on our high moral horse when we aren't having to make these decisions but it's the height of naivete to think that these decisions don't need to be made. Are there better options that would be more effective in dealing with threats of those who want to cause us harm? Yeah probably but in case you haven't noticed the American people don't exactly agree on much. If Obama had stopped the use of drones or had done any of the things that probably would have been more effective, it's very likely that he'd have only gotten one term and we'd have been stuck in whatever hell hole Romney's more competent evil would have wrought with his more competent and less blatantly obvious evil.

People like to talk about how Carter was this horrible President, do you know why? It wasn't because he was lovely on any of the things the majority of posters itt care about. It was because he was seen as weak on defense. Because he lost the hostages, he was dealing with OPEC's bullshit causing fuel shortages and the Iranian revolution and the taking of the hostages.

If Obama had shown the kind of restraint that you'd have preferred when it came to use of force he would have faced those same "weak on defense" attacks, hell he still faced them constantly and yet you are all pissed at him.

Oh and it's never been about giving them more reasons to attack. it's always about disrupting their ability to attack us by decapitating their command structure and undermining their ability to operate and organize. The people who were being targeted were already wanting to attack us, they weren't targeting random people, they were targeting known agitators and leaders who were very much encouraging and organizing people to attack inside the United States. What would you have him ignore them, like W did in the lead up to 911? So we end up with another major foreign launched terror attack on American soil? Do you really think that a few targeted drone strikes would have been sufficient to sate the American public's thirst for blood after another 911 type attack? We already had two forever wars did you really want another? Because that's what that sort of thing would have resulted in.

And even if you don't agree with what I'm writing, the basic fact is that most people do, particularly the people advising him on the issue and given that Obama isn't an expert on the military and counter terrorism he would obviously be giving more weight to their advice, you know the actual experienced professional. You may disagree with their advise, but for him to ignore it would have been a dangerous proposition both politically and from a national security perspective. Basically akin to saying that we should take the word of random chuds on the internet about climate change rather than you know climate scientists.

RBA Starblade posted:

Good job Donald

Skex posted:

The reason they use drones now is that they are more precise than the previous options. The use of drones has likely reduced the number of casualties because they can be used with more precision than other options. Now it's all easy for us to sit on our high moral horse when we aren't having to make these decisions but it's the height of naivete to think that these decisions don't need to be made. Are there better options that would be more effective in dealing with threats of those who want to cause us harm? Yeah probably but in case you haven't noticed the American people don't exactly agree on much. If Obama had stopped the use of drones or had done any of the things that probably would have been more effective, it's very likely that he'd have only gotten one term and we'd have been stuck in whatever hell hole Romney's more competent evil would have wrought with his more competent and less blatantly obvious evil.

People like to talk about how Carter was this horrible President, do you know why? It wasn't because he was lovely on any of the things the majority of posters itt care about. It was because he was seen as weak on defense. Because he was dealing with OPEC's bullshit causing fuel shortages and the Iranian revolution and the taking of the hostages and capped off with the failed rescue attempt.

If Obama had shown the kind of restraint that you'd have preferred when it came to use of force he would have faced those same "weak on defense" attacks, hell he still faced them constantly and yet you are all pissed at him.

Oh and it's never been about giving them more reasons to attack. it's always about disrupting their ability to attack us by decapitating their command structure and undermining their ability to operate and organize. The people who were being targeted were already wanting to attack us, they weren't targeting random people, they were targeting known agitators and leaders who were very much encouraging and organizing people to attack inside the United States. What would you have him ignore them, like W did in the lead up to 911? So we end up with another major foreign launched terror attack on American soil? Do you really think that a few targeted drone strikes would have been sufficient to sate the American public's thirst for blood after another 911 type attack? We already had two forever wars did you really want another? Because that's what that sort of thing would have resulted in.

And even if you don't agree with what I'm writing, the basic fact is that most people do, particularly the people advising him on the issue and given that Obama isn't an expert on the military and counter terrorism he would obviously be giving more weight to their advice, you know the actual experienced professional. You may disagree with their advise, but for him to ignore it would have been a dangerous proposition both politically and from a national security perspective. Basically akin to saying that we should take the word of random chuds on the internet about climate change rather than you know climate scientists.

Phi230 posted:

Why don't we drone bomb you isntead

Skex posted:

Oh and it's never been about giving them more reasons to attack. it's always about disrupting their ability to attack us by decapitating their command structure and undermining their ability to operate and organize. The people who were being targeted were already wanting to attack us, they weren't targeting random people, they were targeting known agitators and leaders who were very much encouraging and organizing people to attack inside the United States. What would you have him ignore them, like W did in the lead up to 911? So we end up with another major foreign launched terror attack on American soil? Do you really think that a few targeted drone strikes would have been sufficient to sate the American public's thirst for blood after another 911 type attack? We already had two forever wars did you really want another? Because that's what that sort of thing would have resulted in.