|
Mo_Steel posted:"Web-cam abortions" The only people interested in watching them would be loving freakshow anti-abortion people.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 17:23
|
|
What in the hell?
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:There's no "back then." They say any and all of those lines depending on context. Consistency has nothing to do with it. c.f. the freeper thread. It's funny how conservatism went from being a semi-intellectual movement into being just a loving hot gooey mess of contradictions and insanity. I mean, gently caress, when their thinkers are making William Buckley look good ... well, that says it all. There are literally no actual intellectual conservatives anymore, not a single one, who actually has any kind of influence on the GOP or Conservatism writ large. Not that the "left" in America has a lot of great thinkers who are in the public sphere influencing policy, but it's better than having raving lunatics actively running the agenda. [edit]People aren't things. BUSH 2112 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
It's great that Clinton's sentiment was "these guys hosed the economy and normal people so hard that the masses are literally calling for blood so obviously we can't actually prosecute them or anything because"
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:More clearly, the implication is that the public is so stupid that politicians should under no circumstances listen to us. So yeah, you could say I'm a little disturbed. He has every right to believe it, though. He won by giving head to people who now vote for the Tea Party, and I doubt that he has even a shred of respect for those morons, who happen to make up a huge chunk of a huge chunk of our already fairly moronic society.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Hakarne posted:I'm a left-leaning individual and I find these threads to be a valuable resource for political news, as well as for presenting fact-based arguments that convincingly advocate for progressive solutions. I would recommend these threads to anyone looking for an objective view on the state of politics in the U.S. Oh hey guys we just crashed the world economy and destroyed the savings that we told you were totally safe in your 401Ks and then placed the blame squarely on poor people for getting loans from us that we knew they couldn't afford, and then we sold those loans as securities that we also assured everyone were totally secure even though we knew it was bullshit, but why would anyone feel violent towards us? Just because some people killed themselves, had their lives ruined, or got divorced because of our actions you think we're somehow guilty? Technically what we did wasn't a crime!
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I guess the question is "is anyone ITT actually someone who suffered significantly or are we just all circle jerking about the revolution". I doubt that there are many Americans in this thread who didn't have their lives significantly affected by what happened. And it's the whole system. Those bankers are the ones who bankroll the companies that bankroll the politicians that pass lovely policies that hurt people. I'd prefer that there was never political violence, but I'll be honest: I'd be okay with 100 rich people being murdered to save the life of one laborer. Because they're loving parasites.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
I was a Libertarian from the time I was a kid until I actually went out and had to live in the real world. My mom let me cast her vote for the presidential election in 1992. I voted for Perot. I was 9. When I was 11 or 12 a girl whose parents were also huge libertarians saw me curiously eyeing up a copy of The Fountainhead that she was reading, and immediately handed it to me with no prompting. After that I openly identified as an Objectivist. I had a Ron Paul sticker on my computer back in 2000. My first official presidential vote was for Badnarik in 2004. In defense of myself, I will say that I never believed in actually getting rid of social welfare programs. That's part of the reason it was so easy to become a socialist, because once you realize that people just get hosed sometimes and life isn't fair (and for some people, it's rigged to be even more unfair), it's difficult to reconcile the logic of libertarianism with reality.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
The grocery store I work at is union, and we have two self-checkouts. The places around here that aren't union are the ones that don't have them, so idk. Really, it's not taking hours for anyone, it's just that instead of having a cashier, there's a coordinator that takes care of any problems with them. It's pretty much a win-win: the company gets two lanes open, and the coordinator is free to do other things instead of having to sit behind a register.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Best Presidential pet was obviously the Coolidges pet raccoons Rebecca and Horace. They were given to the President as a Thanksgiving gift from the Mississippi delegation who intended them to be eaten (of course), but Calvin kept them as pets instead. I love America. I mean, it sucks in so many ways, but just the fact that a delegation from Mississippi gave the president raccoons as food ... I don't know. 
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
The first CEO we elect to be president will have a tiger gold-chained to the desk in the oval office.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
I doubt they'd use anything about the NSA as a reason to impeach Obama, though. It can so easily be linked directly back to Bush, and the GOP establishment obviously really, really wants Jebus to run. Who can blame them, Romney has been out there in pre-primary mode. I never thought he'd actually run in 2016, but after reading Double Down, I actually think he really plans to do it.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:But I don't really understand that reasoning, since the political calculus of impeachment doesn't change at all unless you have enough senate votes to convict. Nothing the GOP does has any point except to waste resources, grandstand, and generally throw a spanner in the works. "We tried our best to kick that wily Obama out of office, but the Democrats in the senate ignored the will of the people." *doffs cap*
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Wait what Oh, it's nuts, but Romney floated the idea of a 2016 run (if Jeb doesn't run) to the media and public through Bob Schieffer. Now he's on TV every few days weighing in on whatever is going down in Conservaland. Maybe it's just him trying to take his place as a party grandee, but to quote Malcolm Tucker "[He's] not a grandee, he's a loving blandee." I don't know how accurate Double Down is, but if they got it right, I think he'd go for it (and get destroyed again).
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Igiari posted:I don't know how you're coming to this conclusion, could you elaborate? Romney at his best was the top of a field of half wits and lunatics, with the exception of Huntsman. He knew that the major money only supported him reluctantly, and only because names like Jeb and Christy we're staying out of it. With them almost certainly in play, he'll know that he'll have no chance of getting any major support, especially now that he has the stink of loser on him from two elections running. It's just a feeling that I have. His 2012 campaign was really badly run, and I think that he really believes that he could do it right. I also think that he was convinced by getting so close that he could, and should, be president. His wife also believes that, and she has a huge influence on him. Like I said, it's just a gut feeling, and it would be pretty weird. I don't think he cares, though. I'm also not saying that it wouldn't be a huge trainwreck.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You legitimately need mental help. No, you need to wake up and see what's really going on.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If masturbating to killing political enemies is waking up I'd rather stay asleep, thank you. They aren't political enemies. They're just enemies. Do you think the guys who want that legislation aren't masturbating at night to the thought of loving over a bunch of poor people for their own gain? They are. It's a game to them.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:For those that are more science-y or have a medical background, I have some questions about lethal injection: When done properly, ie in the way SCotUS approved, it shouldn't be painful. It can no longer be done that way, so no, it's probably not. quote:2. Also from my understanding, people may react differently to different drugs. Would it be possible that the drug used to put a prisoner to sleep might not put him to sleep? Do some states run tests on a prisoner first to see if the sleep drug will work? No, it's not a medical procedure. quote:3. From a medical standpoint, would killing someone via guillotine cause them less physical pain than killing someone via lethal injection? Yup. Being shot in the heart would be less painful. Either way, you die instantly. quote:4. The procedure regarding lethal injection seems pretty complicated and easy to screw up. Is this the case? Do we have some metrics on how often procedures run into complications? I'm not sure how complicated operating a guillotine is, but it seems pretty simple. It's not a procedure. It's misusing drugs to end someone's life. The only protocol is drugs in -> dead guy out. quote:I understand the main reason for using lethal injection is because it makes the perpetrators feel less squeamish and better about themselves. But I'm interested in how "humane" it is compared to other forms of execution in terms of the pain it causes, considering the laughable ruling by SCOTUS hacks. It's just a way to make people feel better about the state murdering mostly poor and minority prisoners.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
I thought the whole Louis CK bit was just an admin getting a kick out of making the forums filter "George Zimmerman" to "Louis CK", but drat. That's really interesting.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Zimmerman got pulled over in Texas for speeding, with a gun in his glove box, and he's not dead. That means he's white enough.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:African-American? African-American can mean any American of african descent. The term "Black" in America means "descendant of african slaves." At least, that's what they taught us the official definition was when I took diversity classes for the education program at school. 
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So Obama's not black. Sounds like your classes sucked poo poo. Well, since we're not in some neo-Nazi hellscape, your personal identification trumps whatever the official definition is, since it's purely for demographic purposes. If the president identifies as black, then he's black. You know the Chappelle's Show sketch about the black white supremacist? That's based on his (Dave Chappelle, not the president) uncle, who was white, blind, and raised by black people who never told him he was white. So, he was black.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Where did this idea come from that reparations would mean you cutting a personal check to your black neighbor? It's an insane strawman. I ain't paying cause some lazy blacks can't get their act together after 140 years! My grandparents were immigrants who came over with nothing but a goat and a dream of ARE FREEDOMS
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
There's only one way to do reparations correctly: Communism.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
greatn posted:Ask the Russian Jewry how communism works out for ethnic minorities. Nothing that the USSR did was ever close to actual communism.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
It's great when people saunter in and say "oh, it's clear that you know nothing about economics and you don't want to learn  " Actually a lot of us do understand your little quasi-religious pseudoscience.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:Redistribution under the dictatorship of the proletariat would not be a 'reparation' from whites to blacks though, but the equal ownership to means of production by workers of all colors. Coates seems to make a point emphasizing that reparation being whites paying recompense for the wrong they committed against blacks. Well, I disagree with that, because a lot of white people are going to see that as punishment for something that they can't understand having anything to do with, setting off more racial resentment, and continuing the cycle. And, in any case, it shouldn't be about race, it's about class. It wasn't just your average white shithead who owned slaves, it was the super-rich who still enslave the poor in lovely jobs with no benefits. I'm not interested in continuing that, personally.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Defender of dictators, introducer of impeachment, and sometimes-Libertarian Bob Barr has Reagan desktop wallpaper, likes to pose with it. 10:1 odds that the desktop picture is only like 720x480 and all pixelated. I mean, just going by every old conservative guy who's computer I've worked on.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Why would the right wing bother to bring Citizens United and ensure that it gets decided as it does if it has no benefit? Why would a billionaire who could never spend all of his money in his life lower his tax burden by 1%? By which I mean that it cost them almost nothing to do it, and the benefit is not being fined or (lol) jailed, and it lends a certain amount legitimacy to their scheme.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:So are you saying that it's entirely impossible to diminish the effectiveness of Big Evil Corporations Buying Elections effect? Is it really that effective? In a few places it's worked like a charm, sure, but those were largely red states in the first place. It kind of seems like the majority of the money these guys have dropped has been useless.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Why even argue about it? Nothing can be done, they've won and if you want to be safe from gun violence move to another country because this poo poo will never stop and they'll never admit there's a problem. If the sky parted and god, creator of the universe and ultimate authority on all things, spoke in a booming voice that GUNS DO IN FACT KILL PEOPLE NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT, gun crazies would ignore that too. We could get guns and kill all of them. That would be hilariously ironic! And just hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I bet in 10-20 years this will seem hilarious compared to the near daily massacres of infants and pregnant women it will inevitably crescendo to. At this point laughter, prayer, or suicide are really the only options. All of them about equally effective.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
I really never thought that the GOP would simply knee-jerk react against anything that Obama does. Like, sure, it was funny when they were like "NO BLACK LADY GON TELL ME TO DRANK WATER!" but who the gently caress ever realistically thought that the GOP would actively want to gently caress veterans while looking like they're loving veterans? It's some through-the-looking-glass poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Bush doesn't belong anywhere near the bottom. Wait for it: PEPFAR. PEPFAR and Iraq cancel each other out! If this isn't a joke, I just don't know what to say, really.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Dystram posted:You misunderstand. It's about creating problems that you can convince your rank-and-file voters to blame Obama for, and they have, and are. I didn't think about it like that, and that makes sense. I guess what doesn't make sense to me is that they're doing such a terrible job of shielding themselves from criticism, if not responsibility. Like, by having the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs openly making GBS threads on veterans organizations, and basically giving them the same unpopular "privatization and personal responsibility" rhetoric that they give everyone else. I don't know, it just seems odd. Then again, it's not a secret that the GOP is entirely unmoored.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
When was the last time there was an actual altercation in congress?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
I forgot that Google exists and I could just look it up: 1902. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more, aside from the aforementioned hell theater.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Whenever someone bitches about politics, I always respond with "Don't blame me: I voted for Kodos." BUSH 2112 fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Since I'm rather young, I have to ask. What happened in 1980 to just loving spike that way? Was it some specific thing or a multitude of things? Crack, iirc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Amergin posted:This entire thread treats every person right-of-center in their political spectrum as a hivemind but heaven forbid someone does the same thing to black people (unless we say they're voting D in which cause it is a hivemind) after said group has voted to take specifically his rights away. Yeah, I wonder why this thread treats everyone right of center as a hivemind. It couldn't at all be that Republicans are constantly shifting goalposts, claiming that they didn't say what they said, and then toeing the party line when the loving whackadoodles on the internet start lambasting them on their FB pages. Couldn't be that challenging the party orthodoxy is a quick way to end up with a Not to mention that there are clearly examples of Republicans who obviously aren't part of that (Rob Portman, the Nevada GOP, uhh ... there are probably a few more I guess). Oh wait Amergin lol For fucks sake, whoever allowed him to be videoed doing this should be shitcanned because holy gently caress. It's like that episode of The Office where Michael brings out his 2.5lb dumbbells because he's going for "tone not bulk." BUSH 2112 fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
The sound a wet fart makes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 01:28
|
|