|
whoflungpoop posted:Also my analogy was perfect bc Obama continually emphasized from the beginning "ok this part was fun but it was the easy part, everyone has to stay politically active and keep at it" and the left said "sure dad this is so stupidly wrong. obama intentionally disbanded his national network that he had built throughout the campaign calling it a "tiger he couldn't control." open your eyes, obama failed the electorate the moment he was elected and only went downhill. you're dumb
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
thanks
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:no i meant wow i didn't know that about obama disbanding his national network and immediately putting wall street people and lobbyists into positions of power, something he promised he wouldn't do? if i'm not mistaken he also fired his entire economic team and hired clintons, but i might be wrong about that
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:You can insult me but not Obama cause he's way better person than I am, like he actually wanted better things for mildly fail ppl like you so try to be gracious at least sometimes its hard to tell who's just stirring the pot and who genuinely thinks obama was as good as advertised its amazing how little people know about the guy who was in charge the last 8 years T.S. Smelliot posted:The mods all quietly deleted all the meltdown threads here's the qcs toxx thread. lowtax shows up somewhere around page 6ish? maybe before, maybe after https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3797342&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:He was the guy who offered to help you fix your toilet and you resent him for not holding your cock to piss and now you are leaving the bathroom angry and with a pee dot on your pants nah dude, he offered to fix my toilet and installed a low-flow one that won't flush my enormous poo poo-logs and now backs up and floods my bathroom all the time where i'm better off wondering if i can perfectly snake a turd down the shower drain from 18 inches up, but hey, the landlord is saving like $5 a year which doesn't really explain why they keep raising the rent
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:Well maybe if you ate healthier like your plumber's wife said you should then you wouldnt have to break up your turds with a wire coathanger before flushing are you kidding me? that's exactly what i did and now my poo poo no longer comes out a as a painful jet of molten poo poo-pudding, which, as unpleasant as it was, was far better than picking turds off my bathmat while ankle deep in sewer water
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Krustic posted:I'm suggesting that HRC should Pokemon Go gently caress herself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Pick posted:Nothing would have happened, period. Bernie doesn't have inroads even among the Democrats, because he's not one, among other issues. And it would be a problem, because unlike Obama '08, there wouldn't even be a short term of getting anything done and it would discourage voters for life. Bernie had no leverage to make any promises come true, and you can't flub hope/change twice in a row and expect people to battered-wife their way back to the polls for round 3. i too remember when bernie campaigned on the promise of "elect me and i'll wave my magic wand and make all this poo poo happen, i promise." maybe he could have built a loyal following if he instead focused on "building movements" by keeping his grassroots organizations engaged after the election, instead of disbanding them like obama. really bernie should have used more realistic language, talking broadly about the overall ambitions of his campaign while simultaneously speaking about the strategies required to get that sort of policy implemented. oh wait, that's exactly what he did. jesus christ, its only been a year since he was actively campaigning and people have no idea what he was saying but will still blurt out inane bullshit like they have any sort of clue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Marxist-leninism or Trotskyism? no, idiot, communism 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Pick posted:You can't keep people interested that long. You cannot loving do it. people were chomping at the bit to get involved under obama and he squandered that poo poo occupy took place during his presidency. people were ready for action people were ready for bernie. your blanket statement of "people will probably get disinterested, i'm sure, because movements never ever happen" is asinine
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Pick posted:This past Sunday was Easter. It's a day when fellow Catholics return to church and they hear about the sacrifice made by Jesus so that their souls might enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Many of the people there believe, they really do, in the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ. They will be inspired. ah yes, annual holiday of millennia-old religion that has been dwindling for over a century is the exact same as an opportunity to try and make a once in a generational change to the social contract. political movements never happen, change is impossible, only the people doing a thing right now can be counted on doing a thing in the future. african americans will never rise up for civil rights, the gays won't march on washington, people won't protest iraq/vietnam, occupy won't last long enough to be forcibly shut down by the government, etc. come on, 
RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Yug posted:He's going to win. Everyone who's so sure he has to lose are the same ones who were so sure he was losing in 2016. Nothing can stop the winning. no that i agree with you, but you do make one salient point just about every major thing people said trump "couldn't possibly do" he's done at this point underestimating or writing off that man is delusional
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Yug posted:If you're saying "Bernie would have won" I already agreed with you. But working class rust belt voters aren't hard core socialist and communists and they aren't going to deliver you a giant left wing wave to make the democrat party any less poo poo. i think there's fertile ground to plant the seeds for a movement. but it would need real support, something the establishment Dems would be unwilling to provide since it would potentially "harm" their donors. its not something that would just appear, but given 4 years of presidency and real effort i think you'd be surprised how open to those ideas people would be. either way, we can't know now and most likely never will (barring some sort of massive political shift). i agree that bernie's first election wouldn't be a massive wave, but i think it could set the stage for one later
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Pick posted:See this is very American though, which is the demonization of the loser. You ostracise them, No True Scotman them, etc. But the reality is, Hillary stood for what you wanted. You just don't want to admit that you lost because your views stood for you and not for a huge proportion of the country. SA is a bastion of 30-something white tech guys who received every benefit from Obama and stood to gain more from the next Obama at bat. But you can't swallow your pride and admit that it wasn't the candidate that was the problem, it's what you, the voter, wanted. Other people didn't want that stuff, they saw you'd gotten more than your fair share already. i think painting swathes of people with a broad brush, thinking you know what they want better than them, telling them they're wrong both ethically and factually, and thinking you know what's best for everyone while discounting the very things they're saying is a major problem with the modern democratic party and its liberal ideology. like your post is "what's wrong with democrats" in a nutshell
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Pick posted:Ultimately, I think a lot of things would be super nice & swell but at the end of the day I want an Earth that is not destroyed and an education system that makes American workers the best and wealthiest on the planet. i care about the earth, but sure, go ahead and rain toxic destruction from the sky in some other country. that never has ecological consequences. what, compound a massive refuge crisis? sure, that won't put extra strain on surrounding nations' infrastructure, forcing governments to continue funneling their resources into protecting the status quo instead of giving them an opportunity to be in a comfortable enough position to even think about the future. i'm just worried about our economy and its workers so lets focus the nation's attention on another incredibly costly, meaningless war that will need to be financed. but gently caress you if you think we're going to raise taxes. let's just cut the social safety net, that will definitely lead to an education system that makes American workers the best and wealthiest on the planet. you're a nut
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Kiryen posted:San Francsico could get vaporized and it would still be "meaningless war" wouldn't it? pick was talking about syria but as for san francisco, read this thread and tell me whether the bay area is worth saving https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3817655
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Pick posted:Literally my main concern at this point is jobs, and I think Hillary would have been better about it for me and my peeps, but frankly the election is over so I don't really give a poo poo beyond the lessons we learned and moving forward. i fail to see how hillary "obama 2.0, america is already great" clinton would've done anything to improve the economy/create jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
OXBALLS DOT COM posted:Actually lots of Americans care because they don't want to piss away money and American lives on another desert shithole. you don't understand in pick's circles there are no poor families with children in the military she doesn't know anyone that would have to go over there and get brain damage from an IED and rely on the government/their families to take care of them for the rest of their life. and she certainly doesn't know any syrians who will inevitably get caught in the crossfire and die needlessly frankly, she doesn't care about that at all
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Kiryen posted:it doesn't matter. people who say things like "meaningless war" could see 1,000,000 dead Koreans or even Americans and it still would not cause them to question their conviction that believing every bad thing around the entire world is the fault of those they have designated enemies on the domestic political scene. i disagree. there's a big difference between isolated war in desert poo poo-hole and regional war involving numerous political/economic/military allies more importantly, the impetus between those two specific instances is totally different. syria would be "an intervention for their own good;" a dubious proposition that we've seen fail numerous times before. a costly, meaningless, virtually endless war in the same vein as Iraq or Afghanistan. north korea would be in retaliation to a peaceful military test, creating a war with a relatively vulnerable country because they're pursuing things we don't want them to have. assuming they do have working devices, war with them would be incredibly dangerous because of the risk of nuclear weapons, in addition to the massive casualties from invading a region as built up, unified, and dug in as that. and that's on top of the potential damage to the tens of millions of people in the surrounding region however, if we were responding to some sort of initial violence perpetuated by North Korea, then i would support intervention, but this is far front he case and most likely never happen because North Korea likes to exist. the point is, not everyone is so callous or numb to the proposition of American military intervention. war is an unequivocally bad thing and its disgusting that democrats are becoming increasingly pro-war
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Kiryen posted:What's disgusting is your excuse-making for a regime that threatens war every 15 minutes or so and has done things like unprovoked sinkings of SK warships for no real reason. "Peaceful military test" - some serious spologism ITT. they want a deterrent to prevent the US from declaring war on them currently the US is threatening to start a war with them north korea is not going to start a war that will see its nation destroyed and its leadership culled. people don't get to power in a murderous dictatorship by being suicidal. come on. i don't think north korea is great, nor do i love it. but i also don't see it as "dangerous." stupid and belligerent sometimes, sure. but so's the US and our belligerence has significantly greater consequences than north korea's. we're the danger. poo poo people in here are calling for war with one of russia's strongest allies, a war that they've declared to be a "red line" that the US shouldn't cross. but nah, its north korea that's dangerous because somehow despite (poorly) managing a nation of millions they're actually a suicidal death cult just waiting to nuke everything in the region because their national leader is somehow bored of living a life of incomprehensible decadence and banging his army of sex-slaves
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Kiryen posted:You're right, they just started their nuke program because of recent events. answer me this question: why would North Korea want to provoke an armed response? what does North Korea have to gain from armed conflict? israel sank the USS Liberty in cold blood, should we bomb them too? edit: we've been in perpetual economic warfare with North Korea for decades. they act out to get economic relief because the US lead alliance is strangling their country.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
OXBALLS DOT COM posted:North Korea has like zero regional ambitions, too. They aren't spreading influence or anything, they just sit there and occasionally do some token military attacks to remind people that the war technically never ended. they act out for economic relief. we've been strangling them for decades. they know that their only card is military force, so its the only one they can play
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:I think the liberty is kind of a pointless question for a couple reasons. For one, it happened 50 years ago so who gives a poo poo anymore. Two, both us and the israelis determined its sinking to be an accident. There are those, including survivors, that say it was deliberate. In my opinion debating which of the two sides is true or arguing some cover-up or whatever is firmly in the conspiracy theory realm so it's pretty extreme to even suggest that we should/should've bombed them as a response to what has been determined to be an accident. what does North Korea have to gain by forcing a military response? the answer is "absolutely nothing" if you're relying on "nation is just suicidal/they hate us for our freedoms" then congratulations, you're an idiot
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:I never said that at all. What I've said is I don't trust KJU to not take extreme measures regardless of his reasons. yes, i'm sure he's willing to risk his life as a demigod of an entire nation over something trivial come on, stop buying the propaganda of "he's just crazy and willing to throw away everything at the drop of a hat" even if they nuked an entire carrier group it wouldn't get them anything because it would only be a matter of time before they were ground down into dust. North Korea won't ever launch a serious military operation until the troops are on their beaches and the missiles are raining from the sky. the reason we haven't forced an action out of them is that no one wants to deal with the total mess that would create. its a serious "you break it, you buy it" situation. The Human Crouton posted:You are assuming a rational actor. You are trying to put your rational mind into your opponent and play against yourself instead of them. One cannot know if their opponent is actually rational or not until the conflict is over and viewed in hindsight. see, its total madness. the man runs a murderous despotic hell-hole. if he were incompetent he wouldn't be in charge. he'd be dead. people said the same poo poo all the time about the USSR and those godless soviets, yet we have plenty of evidence of them standing down multiple times on erroneous nuclear threats RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:I don't trust any dictator to not do extreme things, especially when their regime is enforced with a cult of personality and state media that routinely publishes apocalyptic statements from that regime. please, tell me the dictators that performed random violent actions that brought the wrath of superior militaries down upon them don't loving say hitler
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Saddam lol saddam was tricked into war the US told him they wouldn't intervene and then did the guy was a CIA asset and we were his benefactor during the Iran-Iraq war very different situation but, i'll still give you a point. OTHER than saddam? our one time ally that was acting under an assumption of permission from said superior military?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:I'm not saying random. I'm saying whatever happens in the future with N.Korea I'd rather it not happen with them having nukes. That's all. everyone said the same thing about Pakistan, and they've got much more reason to use them (against india) and have been behaving in a way that would escalate tension AND have a disputed territory that violence breaks out over frequently but no one seems to care about that situation at all
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
OXBALLS DOT COM posted:Everyone is extremely worried and mad when a country is close to getting nukes. Then they get them and suddenly everyone is acting all nice and poo poo even though the country is the same despotic shithole it was before. Wow, I wonder why every dictator wants these things exactly all nukes are are imperial intervention prevention ruling countries hate it because it robs them of their threat of military power. 3rd world countries love them because they stop being as easily exploited
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:Maybe if you were in AP but meanwhile many people can't even tell you how many stars are on the flag. at least a hundred. there's a shitload of 'em
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Pick posted:If you can name both of your own current state senators you are in rare loving form. tragically true
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
this can't be real
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Lactose Is Wack posted:the best part is living in NYC sucks major rear end lol, not if you're absurdly rich spacetoaster posted:There was a study done that found New York and New Jersey are the most moved out of states in the U.S. i can't speak for new york, but i'm from New Jersey originally. NJ is a prep state. it primarily exists to service two other states' major cities: Philadelphia and New York. There is no major state university, nor many great universities in the state and its one of the best states for public education in the country. so what that means is the people raised in the new jersey go out of state for college and typically end up somewhere else, when their parents retire they move out of the state because the property taxes that pay for the great education are too high for retirees, and people who work in either major city move in. it's a big cycle, obviously with plenty of exceptions, but that's why people move out of NJ. its a springboard state. people live there because they work in the major surrounding cities and its a great place to raise kids because the education system is stellar. side note: due to the lack of universities within the state and the plethora in surrounding states, NJ send more kids out of state for college than any other state. people aren't leaving because it sucks. they're leaving because unless you're working in NYC or Phila, there's no real reason to be there and you're probably already somewhere else because of college
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:You just said that it has no universities and it's too expensive for poors. there are plenty of poor people in new jersey, but those aren't the people leaving jersey, so they're irrelevant to the conversation (though plenty of poor people on the pennsylvania boarder are jumping over because the taxes are lower, like my brother who is solidly working class) jersey is great because it has fantastic k-12 education, top 5 in the nation i believe and has access to two major metropolitan working areas (phila/nyc). so its great to be a kid there and its great to be a professional there. being poor anywhere sucks and no state is perfect, but if you want to understand "why people leave jersey" its not because its a miserable shithole. its because its a state that people naturally cycle into and out of. of my 3 siblings, only one lives in jersey (she just moved back because she's a rich nyc professional) and the rest of us have left. my friends who grew up there have mostly left. i'm sure some will return when they have money and families because its great if you have those two things. ltugo posted:I wouldn't exactly call Princeton and Rutgers scrub-tier schools. two universities isn't nearly enough for a state of 9 million people. in addition, princeton isn't a "Jersey" school. its an Ivy league school with international draw.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I had to drive through jersey once to get to NY and it sucked. The roads are awful. cool story, bro
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
anime was right posted:new jersey is the best suburb ever, but being the best suburb ever is not a glowing recommendation pretty much also has arguably the worst ghettos too! (camden/trenton)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
behold: the special posting that is "gun chat"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
i guess i don't see what you're getting at yug. spell it out for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
more details, please like, where is osama now? who contacted pakistan, what did they tell them, how did they sell them? where are those weird new helicopter picks from? just more details. give me like 10 sentences at least on what you think this all is
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Yug posted:Osama probably died of natural causes but I really have no idea. so just to be clear, you have nothing to refute the official story other than "nah" like two navy seals wrote books about the raid. did they collaborate despite hating each other, knowing that only one would be able to rake in profits from the action? both book long stories are virtually identical, though do vary in some of the specifics of action inside the house, among other things, but no more than the way two eyewitness stories typically diverge the intercept put out a long article recently about how our special forces are basically ruthless kill squads the go around committing atrocities including desecrating dead bodies (via "canoeing") and within that article it spends a lot of time talking about the raid. wouldn't the intercept, of all outlets, be the first to raise red flags if they noticed anything suspicious about the story?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Yug posted:There is no actual hard evidence for the raid ever having happened and until it is provided I will view it with a great deal of skepticism. Like how many times do you have to fall for this poo poo before you learn your lesson? i'm not falling for poo poo, i was just wondering if you had any evidence to disprove the narrative that numerous other skeptics with far more truth seeking resources seem to buy i agree that there is an immense necessity to question government narratives on everything from the strategic, like iraq, to the operational, like pat tillman. but the osama raid seems to be pretty well accepted by people who are better at figuring this stuff out than you or i. there have been interviews of people in the surrounding area who heard/witnessed the raid and who said they knew osama lived there, so that seems pretty concrete. like, i'm with you that they government lies all the time, but i see their lies as being about things where the specificity is considerably less important. like, if you're going to claim you captured saddam or killed bin laden, you better be drat sure you did, even if you can't "prove it" because being caught on that lie would be like watergate levels of controversy. getting caught on stuff that's less specific like "reasons to start a war" or "what actually happened to that random guy" seems orders of magnitude lower than "claiming to have killed the guy that did 9/11 and sent this country on a horrific spiral of violence and self destruction with no end in sight" but hey, that's just me. i was just hoping to see what your alternative narrative or proof against it was, but you don't have anything other than "nah, the government lies"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 20:50
|
|