shmups.system11.org

Shmups Forum
 
* FAQ    * Search
 * Register  * Login 
It is currently Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:51 am View unanswered posts
View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4933 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 ... 165  Next

Do you think they're REALLY going to repeal Obamacare now that they can?
Yes, they're honorable men who would never lie, they said they were gonna, so it's going to happen 27%  27%  [ 4 ]
No, the insurance companies would disapprove of that 27%  27%  [ 4 ]
Maybe, I just don't know anymore 47%  47%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 15
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:53 pm 



Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Posts: 929
Location: 横浜
BulletMagnet wrote:
What the fuck, dude? :lol: The only reason anyone's still talking about the flyovers is your insistence that they "don't count" as "real" aggression from Russia (btw, if the missile test really IS "significant", why is this the only time you've bothered to so much as mention it?)


I'm calling out your profound lack of knowledge on military and world affairs. These things happen all the time. The missile test is significant, but I seriously doubt you understand why that is.

Quote:
Moreover, if they're really not that big a deal, why did the article I linked quote the ship's captain as expressing concern about it? Did the Soros Mafia get to him, too? :lol:


It's a canned response. When you make a statement as a representative of the military, you have to always be "deeply concerned".

Quote:
Though the whole point is that Trump bragged throughout the campaign that this sort of nonsense wouldn't happen under him because of all the RESPECT he would be getting from Putin and everyone else; so, when does that start?


He just got into office. And for fuck's sake, an established status quo of over 50 years doesn't just end overnight. The truth of the matter is that the Cold War never really ended; our strategic level planning hasn't fundamentally changed since the Berlin wall came down, and neither has Russia's or pretty much anyone else's besides China.

Quote:
Oh, and has the faint possibility ever crossed that special little mind of yours that these sorts of incidents might be getting a wider range of coverage these days because our current President was likely assisted by Russia during the campaign


Image

Quote:
Maybe, just maybe there isn't a vast everyone-else conspiracy to "get" Trump


The Republicans, the Democrats, the vast majority of the media and in all likelihood rogue elements of the intelligence community are all out to get him.

Quote:
but perhaps it might make some sort of sense to focus on Russia's actions a little more than usual at the moment, considering the situation we find ourselves in?


There's a fine line between focus and hysteria. You fall squarely on one side of that, and it's probably not the one you think you're on.

Quote:
I thought you voted for him because you were hoping he would suck up to Putin, y'know, the whole "WW3 imminent" thing. :lol: So does this mean you're somehow disappointed?


"Suck up" lol. More like cease to arm terrorists in a hotly contested region and maybe put an end to this mess.

And of course I'm not disappointed. I know that he's doing his best to keep the rogue elements of the intelligence community under his thumb. These things take time.

Quote:
So, if Trump and company really do believe that Putin is, to put it bluntly, the most unhinged and dangerous individual on the planet (and that's ignoring his horrendous human rights record, unending power grabs, and shameless corruption...which is precisely what Team Trump has consistently done), is total capitulation really the best, let alone only, possible response we can offer? Is this really the message we want to send to a trigger-happy megalomaniac?


First of all, if you want to talk corruption, human rights abuses, etc., look no further than Saudi Arabia, which backed Hillary's campaign significantly.

Secondly, cooperating with Russia in Syria is far from "total capitulation". It's not as if we don't have our own vested interests to look after in Syria and elsewhere. For example, we won't be backing off from China any time soon, though if we became amicable towards Russia they may make things easier for us in that realm. That's just one of several areas where we will still be doing everything we've been doing regardless of what happens in Syria. It'd just be nice if we finally decided to put a halt to a crisis that we manufactured for political ends.

Quote:
1) Why should any measure of legitimacy be granted to an individual, let alone an entire party, whose entire economic platform is based upon a proven and highly destructive falsehood, namely "shower the rich with even more riches and the government coffers will overflow, and shared wealth will trickle down to everyone else?" While we're at it, why would such a staunchly capitalist cadre even propose such a thing, since the very concept of "shared wealth", very much including the existence of a middle class, flies directly in the face of what capitalism is supposed to be about?


Why should any measure of legitimacy be granted to you or anyone else? What makes you the judge, jury and executioner? We're not a communist society yet, so put the machete aside, comrade.

There's a few ways to interpret "showering the rich". In this day and age there is such a thing as government backed market speculation, so if you're specifically talking about that, then I'd agree that is a bad thing and should be put to an end. But if you're just talking about the basics of a functioning economy (ie: regulations at levels that allow for profit which allows for investment), then I'd have to disagree and say that over-regulation is one of the biggest economic burdens in the US right now.

Now, I doubt this is something you actually want to have a conversation about, but if you do, then all I ask is that you keep this on for background noise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

and get back to me when you're done.

And yeah, shared wealth is a poor way to describe an overall richer society and higher quality of living. I don't know if that's what someone tried to argue to you, but it's not really the case.

Quote:
2) Why should anyone, of any political affiliation, NOT be outraged at the current administration's casual and constant evocation of "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories to justify itself in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? How is such a modus operandi even a little bit acceptable?


As if Drumpf and fake news weren't enough, now you've taken the alternative facts bait. It's a legal term, and Conway went to law school. I somehow doubt this would have faced a fraction of the scrutiny it has had it come from Elizabeth Warren or whoever else.

In any case, you'll have to be more specific here because I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. Some of the things he's said have been blatantly false, others have sounded crazy but are actually true. You'll have to give me an example.

Quote:
3) When Trump stated, on national television, that he'd sent investigators to Hawaii to "unearth the truth" about Obama's birth, and moreover asserted that "they cannot believe what they're finding", how was this NOT both a stunningly brazen on-the-record lie and open-faced slander of a sitting President?


It's both of those. But don't try to take the moral high ground when that same administration's response to an attack on an US embassy was to blame it on a YouTube video.

Quote:
How is anyone supposed to consider Trump's pick to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court, whoever it is, as even remotely legitimate, considering that the open seat was stolen in broad daylight by his party in Congress? And before you answer, ask yourself yet another question (feel free to lie down first and catch your breath); if the exact same thing happened except that the party affiliations were switched around, would your answer be the same?


What can I say man: that's politics. You win some you lose some. You can say whatever you want about how the Republicans prevented a new nominee from taking a seat on the court, but be honest with yourself: in their shoes, the Democrats, the Greens, the Libertarians, or whoever the fuck else would have done the exact same thing.

Again, for all this bitching about the Republicans in Congress, I see little to no introspection from those on the left as to how they got there. It may be hard to remember now, but there was a point in recent history when Democrats had an overwhelming majority of the federal government.

Quote:
Moreover, if the media is truly so devoted to bringing down Trump, why, when equipped with such a widely-covered, open-and-shut case of malicious mendacity on his part, did absolutely every one of them immediately acquiesce and stop asking about it altogether (on the off-chance they ever bothered to ask in the first place, mind you) when he declared "we don't talk about it anymore" without any further explanation?


Are you talking about back in 2012? He wasn't running for President, for starters, so he was pushed aside for more important stories.

And seriously, stop denying the inherent bias in the media. At this point, it's destroying whatever credibility you have.

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/06/how-ne ... ers-trump/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/m ... it-anymore
http://i.imgur.com/RfATXJM.jpg


Last edited by quash on Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:30 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 3319
quash wrote:
but there was a point in recent history when Democrats had an overwhelming majority of the federal government.


Which is a good possibility when Bush 2018 Edition comes out.

Depressing how democrats do much better with no spokesman, as opposed to having an evil one. Trump will save the democrats who would not save themselves. Pelosi Was Right.

(The liberal xenophobia is just great, ain't it? Still the blue version of birthers.

Monthly reminder there is no evidence of Russia "hacking" Podesta or the DNC. Daily reminder that increased transparency in our government is what everyone should want in the first place. Hourly reminder that no one cares about this. (Did Russia donate $1 billion to The Trump Foundation? Then it's not exactly equal even if proven true. If you're going to chase conspiracy theories and conjecture, at least have the basic decency to make them exciting and impactful. Christ.)

Some people watch way too much on TV and spend way too little time reviewing raw sources. They share a lot with our President, in that regard.)

(When the citation for some serious claim is some vague unnamed anonymous source, replace it in your head with "some asshole". "A source at the Pentagon" = "some asshole". Appeal To Authority is a tactic of mental grooming, protect your brain damnit. Ben Carson is a doctor. I wouldn't take his advice on anything. Because: "he's just some asshole." Like everyone and anyone else.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:01 am 


User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 13139
Location: Chicago
sweden
_________________
RegalSin wrote:
New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:01 am 


User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 972
GaijinPunch wrote:
sweden

yes
_________________
Xyga wrote:
chum wrote:
the thing is that we actually go way back and have known each other on multiple websites, first clashing in a Naruto forum.

Liar. I've known you only from latexmachomen.com and pantysniffers.org forums.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:48 am 


User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Posts: 7177
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Quote:
This means that Sweden now approves of Sharia law.

My eyes just rolled so hard that they actually popped out of my skull.
_________________
@trap0xf | daifukkat.su/blog | scores | FIRE LANCER
<S.Yagawa> I like the challenge of "doing the impossible" with older hardware, and pushing it as far as it can go.
<Shepardus> whoever reached the fourth loop in zing zing zip is the modern day sisyphus


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:34 am 


User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 4242
Location: Berlin, Germany
Durandal wrote:
GaijinPunch wrote:
sweden

yes


Speisa is not a reputable news source with journalistic integrity. The issue is not black and white, but rather a matter of lacking legal precedent, therefore it is not something the judiciary can or should solve. Here's an overview of the problem and different legislative approaches: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37518289?client=safari

I might add that in many US states it is also legal for minors to marry with parental or jusicial consent, such as in the case of pregnancy, so it's by no means an unusual practice.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:02 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 972
CIT wrote:
Durandal wrote:
GaijinPunch wrote:
sweden

yes


Speisa is not a reputable news source with journalistic integrity. The issue is not black and white, but rather a matter of lacking legal precedent, therefore it is not something the judiciary can or should solve. Here's an overview of the problem and different legislative approaches: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37518289?client=safari

I might add that in many US states it is also legal for minors to marry with parental or jusicial consent, such as in the case of pregnancy, so it's by no means an unusual practice.

I guess they were making the situation out to be worse than it really is, then.
_________________
Xyga wrote:
chum wrote:
the thing is that we actually go way back and have known each other on multiple websites, first clashing in a Naruto forum.

Liar. I've known you only from latexmachomen.com and pantysniffers.org forums.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:45 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 3319
Quote:
Note, the article picture is for illustrative purpose only.


keke

That integrity


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:57 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 11503
Location: Wherever.
Boy, it's been a bit since I've had to dissect one of these monstrosities...happy Presidents' Day, everyone. :lol:

quash wrote:
The missile test is significant, but I seriously doubt you understand why that is.

Well, how can a pleb like me comprehend such a thing unless an insider like you humbles himself and enlightens me, as opposed to dismissing me outright as a hopeless drone, as Team Trump always complains about when it's done to them?

Quote:
It's a canned response. When you make a statement as a representative of the military, you have to always be "deeply concerned".

Do you think that there's any possibility that someone "in the know" actually is concerned about stuff like this to some degree, even if it does "happen all the time"...heck, perhaps the cause for concern could be that it does occur so frequently, and it shouldn't?

Quote:
He just got into office. And for fuck's sake, an established status quo of over 50 years doesn't just end overnight.

No, but Trump's entire sales pitch was based on the notion that the real problem in our foreign policy wasn't actually policy, it was character, i.e. it doesn't matter what position we take unless the guy in charge is willing to be bold and follow through on it, to earn RESPECT. He went on and on about how much every world leader (except whichever ones he's badmouthing at the moment, anyway) loved him, wanted to work with him, was so happy to see him in office instead of Wimpy Obama. And his concrete foreign policy proposals other than "be RESPECTED" are...? Heck, he's already gone back on his possibly-unintentional endorsement of an independent Taiwan that his followers were swooning over, and The Wall That The Mexicans Will Totally Pay For is a screaming joke (not that anyone saw it coming a mile away or anything!), just for starters.

As you and everyone else have been crowing, if the electorate was all that concerned about hard numbers and laid-out plans, they would have elected Hillary in a rout; instead, they opted (well, electoral college-wise, at least) for the guy who wasn't selling his platform, he was selling himself, and you've praised him to the heavens as a genius for doing so. So when, in your estimation, do we declare ourselves past the point where it's clear that the rest of the world wasn't just going to line up to kiss his ring just because of how awesome he is, and that we might just need an actual plan on some of this stuff? Trump himself certainly doesn't seem in any big hurry on that front.

Quote:
PROOFS

To the best of my knowledge there's nothing definitive, hence the "likely" disclaimer in my statement, but it doesn't matter either way because...

Quote:
The Republicans, the Democrats, the vast majority of the media and in all likelihood rogue elements of the intelligence community are all out to get him.

There's way too much compacted in this one for me to even attempt to shovel out without my fingers falling off, but I will reiterate one thing that still doesn't seem to be gaining much traction on your end: criticism does not always equal conspiracy. Oh, and by the by...

Quote:
There's a fine line between focus and hysteria. You fall squarely on one side of that, and it's probably not the one you think you're on.

...dude, you and your cadre, Trump himself included, don't even want to try to clarify the matter in any capacity. :lol: And as long as enough of his supporters are convinced that anything outside of unreserved praise for anything Trump does is "proof" that Everyone Is Out To Get Me - and, perhaps more importantly, his enablers are willing to sit by and exploit that mindset to their own advantage - he won't have to, and yeah, sue me, I find that state of affairs concerning.

Quote:
"Suck up" lol. More like cease to arm terrorists in a hotly contested region and maybe put an end to this mess.

At this point the "end" seems to be Putin and Assad indiscriminately slaughtering everyone who's breathed the same air as any suspected rebel (which, of course, even if you really don't care who dies, never leaves the remaining population utterly ripe for terrorist recruitment or anything), so I'm not really sure what kind of "victory" we can claim here unless you're still sticking to the "Putin sleeps with his finger on the nuclear trigger, so we should totally be pals" theory - which, as it happens, you completely failed to address, by deflecting to:

Quote:
First of all, if you want to talk corruption, human rights abuses, etc., look no further than Saudi Arabia, which backed Hillary's campaign significantly.

...so yeah, try that one again, Kellyanne. :lol: But while we're here, why not take a moment to remind everyone that, despite most of the 9/11 terrorists being from there, its horrendous proxy war in Yemen, etc. Trump's travel ban didn't bother to finger Saudi Arabia as a place meriting enough concern to lock the proverbial door...quite the contrary, in fact! One can only wonder why.

Quote:
Secondly, cooperating with Russia in Syria is far from "total capitulation".

Trump's position goes WAY beyond "cooperating" solely in the interest of anti-terrorism and you know it, so why all the kissy-face bells and whistles, if all we really intend to do is oppose ISIS? Y'know, purely business? And God knows he's treated his business partners a lot worse than he's treating Putin.

Quote:
For example, we won't be backing off from China any time soon

Steve Bannon would certainly agree with you:

“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” Bannon said last March. “There’s no doubt about that."

But somehow that increasingly aggressive nuclear power isn't worth the never-ending handjob treatment, and I've yet to hear anyone even attempt to explain why.

Quote:
It'd just be nice if we finally decided to put a halt to a crisis that we manufactured for political ends.

...nope, someone else already got to both Bowling Green and Sweden, guess I missed my moment. :lol: Though one can always pull up the "record high" crime and unemployment rates, among many, many others, in their stead, and declare irony thoroughly dead. :lol:

Y'know, as we get ready to take home all that ISIS oil. Or maybe not. :lol:

Quote:
Why should any measure of legitimacy be granted to you or anyone else?

Because some folks have the (non-alternative) facts on their side, and others don't - believe it or not, it does happen!

Quote:
There's a few ways to interpret "showering the rich".

...but somehow every single one of them does so at the direct expense of the rest of the population, and never grant any of the benefits they promise, except the ones that go directly to themselves (hence why any economic "boom" under conservatives happens almost exclusively to those at the top, while the rest stagnate or worse). Never. It has literally never happened, and I would love to hear you or anyone else argue otherwise.

Quote:
I'd have to disagree and say that over-regulation is one of the biggest economic burdens in the US right now.

It always cracks me the hell up how apologists for corporate plutocrats praise the private sector as the most resilient, creative, trailblazing entity mankind has ever known, right up until the government has the gall to tell them "don't dump toxic waste in drinking water" or "don't have your entire company's portfolio tied up in high-risk funds even you say you don't understand"; then, quick as you can blink, they're all helpless babies who must be freed, ever so gently, from the darkening shadow of tyranny (forget, y'know, actually making a cogent argument for your position, it's always somehow a matter of ever-vague principle). Is every regulation well thought out? Of course not. But enough to justify Trump's third-grader-caliber "for every new regulation passed two old ones are scrapped" order? Come the fuck on.

Off to the side, I would also love for you to explain to me what the benefits of repealing the "fiduciary rule" would be for most of Trump's supporters.

Quote:
Now, I doubt this is something you actually want to have a conversation about, but if you do, then all I ask is that you keep this on for background noise:

Ah, yes, the "if you oppose stuffing cash directly into the 1%'s pants then you're a lazy, stupid freeloader who expects to get everything for free as long as you scream loud enough" view of people who don't know how to make money, as you memorably labeled them. It never quite made sense to me how the same folks who claim to love and speak for "the hardworking common man" instantly turn on them as a bunch of worthless layabouts as soon as they start wondering why they can't afford basic necessities - "obviously you morons aren't working hard enough" (or, alternatively, "regulations are preventing us from working you hard enough")! Somehow the people suffering the most are somehow simultaneously, and inevitably, the most mollycoddled; it's literally never anything else. Weird that some people, especially after repeated efforts to invoke "trickle down" have failed them spectacularly, are slightly skeptical of that notion, eh? :roll:

Quote:
And yeah, shared wealth is a poor way to describe an overall richer society and higher quality of living. I don't know if that's what someone tried to argue to you, but it's not really the case.

It's sure as hell the proverbial car Trump was selling: cut upper-end taxes and lower regulations and all the rich people will do so much investing, so much hiring, all the good jobs will come back overnight, it'll be amazing, so much winning yeeaaahhh. Hence why shills like you can still pretend to call him a populist.

Quote:
As if Drumpf and fake news weren't enough, now you've taken the alternative facts bait. It's a legal term, and Conway went to law school.

Oh man, did I get a massive laugh out of this one: it seems you embed links largely for appearance's sake, in the hope that nobody ever actually clicks them. Guess I "took the bait", all right! :lol: Well then, let's go right to the summary at the top of the page you linked:

Alternative facts is a term in law to describe inconsistent sets of facts put forth by the same party in a court given that there is plausible evidence to support both alternatives. The term is also used to describe competing facts for the two sides of the case.

So first off, both accepted definitions refer specifically to facts presented during a legal argument, which means the term doesn't apply to anything she, Spicer, or anyone else have said outside of a courtroom, but hell, we can - nay, must! - still take the next step: both definitions assume that plausible evidence is being presented on both sides of an argument (hence the term, y'know, facts), but in Team Trump's case we're talking proven facts versus proven falsehoods: there's no "argument" whatsoever to be had on their merits. So we have two possibilities here: 1) Conway is completely incompetent when it comes to legal terminology, or 2) There's no way in hell that this was what she was referring to. And there's no way in hell you didn't already know which it was when you posted this.

More importantly, you - surprise! - never addressed the crux of my question: how is this an even remotely acceptable way to run a government? Try again, Kellyanne. Still waiting.

Quote:
I somehow doubt this would have faced a fraction of the scrutiny it has had it come from Elizabeth Warren or whoever else.

Oh fuck off. :lol: For all the criticism the left gets for "bad optics" even when there's nothing actually going on (and oh yes, we will be coming back to that), you still can't quite seem to acknolwedge that your side of the aisle (though somehow you still like to present yourself as all but completely removed from it :lol:), and especially Trump, have been graded on an enormous curve when it comes to asking "does this make any sense" (see following item)? Not only this administration but the modern right as we know it wouldn't exist if you weren't.

Quote:
Some of the things he's said have been blatantly false, others have sounded crazy but are actually true.

Nononono, you've been slithering around this thread more than long enough to have access to myriad "examples" of precisely the manner of blatant bullshit you keep requesting (y'know what, fine: go back but a handful of posts to his "faulty recollection" of how many electoral votes he got...freakin' unbelievable :lol:); on this one, you find me an example of something that "sounded crazy but turned out to be true". I can't freakin' wait. :lol:

Quote:
But don't try to take the moral high ground when that same administration's response to an attack on an US embassy was to blame it on a YouTube video.

Aaaaand Benghazi - the ultimate in "bad optics" - makes its own inevitable appearance, stage right. :lol: News flash to you, not to mention most of the rest of the country (you want to talk about under-reported items? Take a poll and see how many people were even remotely aware of this one): when Susan Rice invoked that video on TV, she was 1) Accurately reporting what the intelligence community believed at the time, and 2) Was careful to state that at that point nothing had been completely investigated and that further investigation might change the outlook. Seriously. Not that folks like you care either way; no matter what's unearthed or not, no matter how many inquiries turn up completely empty, you will never abandon an easily-spammable sucker punch.

Quote:
You can say whatever you want about how the Republicans prevented a new nominee from taking a seat on the court, but be honest with yourself: in their shoes, the Democrats, the Greens, the Libertarians, or whoever the fuck else would have done the exact same thing.

Nononono, no fucking way you get to play the "both sides do it" card, not here: as has fallen upon deliberately deaf ears a million times by now, Congress has had plenty of opportunities to cook up the current GOP's asinine "nominating in an election year is just distasteful" excuse for their refusal to do their job (and, more importantly, go on the record for their actions instead of hiding and covering their eyes in hopes nobody notices them), including during Reagan's final term, and they didn't fucking do it. You assholes did, and only you assholes did. Own it, criticize it or even just take the John Roberts route and just shut the hell up.

Quote:
Again, for all this bitching about the Republicans in Congress, I see little to no introspection from those on the left as to how they got there.

I'll quote myself, from two whole pages ago:

Conservatives have, for decades on end, with little real pushback from either the left or the center, turned outright falsehoods about the way the country works into "conventional wisdom" (tax cuts for rich people increase revenue! for-profit healthcare is the best in the world!), and moreover have insisted, again and again, that running a government is easy, it's all a sham, any idiot can do it, all you need is to unfailingly kowtow to the interests of the very wealthy while still somehow being an asshole to "the establishment", which generally includes anyone with relevant expertise pointing out that their numbers never add up; the latter, of course, serve as "proof" that everyone else is always biased and out to get them, which in turn justifies their most bizarre and extreme actions as "balance" to the overwhelming opposition they face.

Same as it ever was.

Quote:
Are you talking about back in 2012?

Nope, I was talking about 2016, when a handful of silly people got the idea that yeah, maybe the fact that this guy (as even you are forced to admit) openly slandered the current President and never offered any explanation (let alone an apology) for his actions, and that this might be something worth noting. And no, they never bothered to actually demand a straight answer from him, and never will. Aaaand right on cue:

Quote:
And seriously, stop denying the inherent bias in the media. At this point, it's destroying whatever credibility you have.

And once again we witness the power of the "everyone's out to get me" mindset - I especially love the list of newspaper endorsements you repeatedly trot out, because obviously none of them actually thought that Clinton was the better choice, and every single one only said so because they didn't want to be ridiculed at the next New World Order luncheon. :lol: So here we go again: does legitimate bias exist? Duh! Is it so pervasive and so tilted against Team Trump that you get to "play the victim card", as you always love to criticize "the left" (however you care to define it) for supposedly doing? Tell that to Al Gore. Or hell, Hillary Fucking Clinton and all three of her mislabeled emails. :lol:

Oh, and to finish up, you never bothered to acknowledge the last part of my post:

So when does [Trump] plan to quit trolling people who prefer their leaders say things which are true and maybe actually say things that are true and maybe even act upon them? And when do his followers plan to actually press him on this in some fashion?

And while I'm at it, I'll tack on an addendum, just for giggles: what exactly are the "other things" Trump is deliberately distracting everyone from, and just why doesn't he want them discussed?

Quote:
That integrity

At least they actually state it openly, unlike Team Trump.
_________________
"I guarantee you American scores will go up once Pi is 3. It will be so much easier."
Glossary / Discussion / The Bizaar / Vasara HS


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:48 am 


User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Posts: 2756
what makes you post those long ass paragraphs and how long does making such a post take


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:06 am 


User avatar

Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 981
I would guesstimate a total of three hours. One is dedicated to writing the words, and two are dedicated to contemplating the horrid truth--that nothing you type will matter because we live in a post-definition world in which any sentence can have any, all, or no meanings depending on the convenience and preconceptions of both the person speaking them and the person listening to them.
_________________
Trigonometry Wars 4
My Little Pegasus: Kizuna DoPonyPachi
Trigonometry Wars 3 Redux: The Revengeoning


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:19 am 


User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Posts: 2756
why not just call him a cuck and then play video games for 3 hours


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:55 am 



Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Posts: 929
Location: 横浜
Giest118 wrote:
the horrid truth--that nothing you type will matter because we live in a post-definition world in which any sentence can have any, all, or no meanings depending on the convenience and preconceptions of both the person speaking them and the person listening to them.


Isn't that the truth. Or is it?
Bananamatic wrote:
why not just call him a cuck and then play video games for 3 hours


BulletMagnet's dilemma is that he can't do this. You can take a few guesses as to why, but by now it's hilariously transparent at least to me.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:09 am 


User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 101
BulletMagnet wrote:
Quote:
And seriously, stop denying the inherent bias in the media. At this point, it's destroying whatever credibility you have.

And once again we witness the power of the "everyone's out to get me" mindset - I especially love the list of newspaper endorsements you repeatedly trot out, because obviously none of them actually thought that Clinton was the better choice, and every single one only said so because they didn't want to be ridiculed at the next New World Order luncheon. :lol: So here we go again: does legitimate bias exist? Duh! Is it so pervasive and so tilted against Team Trump that you get to "play the victim card", as you always love to criticize "the left" (however you care to define it) for supposedly doing? Tell that to Al Gore. Or hell, Hillary Fucking Clinton and all three of her mislabeled emails. :lol:


I think his point is more like: Suppose Obama was president and replace all of the "endorsed Clinton" on that list with Breitbart clones. Would you think the media was biased in that case?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:04 am 


Banned User
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 488
Less time posting dumb, uninformed shite, more time reading Chomsky's oeuvre.
I'll wait.

Maybe I wont.
I shan't hold my breath. Enjoy your illusions.
_________________
"A bleeding heart welcomes the sharks."


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:00 am 


User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 972
Bananamatic wrote:
what makes you post those long ass paragraphs and how long does making such a post take

The side effects of having more knowledge about a certain topic than most people do to the point of transcendence and the need to call out bullshit
_________________
Xyga wrote:
chum wrote:
the thing is that we actually go way back and have known each other on multiple websites, first clashing in a Naruto forum.

Liar. I've known you only from latexmachomen.com and pantysniffers.org forums.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:15 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 1201
Location: philly suburbs
Durandal wrote:
Bananamatic wrote:
what makes you post those long ass paragraphs and how long does making such a post take

The side effects of having more knowledge about a certain topic than most people do to the point of transcendence and the need to call out bullshit


Exactly. It's just a shame it's wasted trying to argue with a cultist. Quash will never admit that he's wrong about anything because he's too brain-washed by right wing propaganda, and convinced that he's superior to everyone who is left of himself because he knows the truth.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:33 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 3319
Talking about mirror worlds, I was checking in on Hamon and Mélenchon, to see if they can get their asses unified and win the damn election. (So far it looks like a "no".) Two very different outlets have very different opinions on the matter:

Bloomberg seems to think a unified left would "lose big" to Le Pen. Why? Just offered as objective fact, with no data or logic behind it. They're not "center". What is "center"? Anyone who's received sufficient bribes from Bloomberg, obviously. Good bro science bro.

Jacobin offers an opposing opinion: that if the long shot of Le Pen is to have a chance, it's most likely to succeed against the republican who wants to cut benefits and give billionaires a tax cut. Without that foil, she only has the support of the nationalists.

That's something I like about Reason, too. Less bro science propaganda bullshit and a little more... uh, reason. I really don't know how some of you can watch the stuff on TV - surely you can't hear anything over your yelling at it every 5 minutes?

Examples:

"NO ONE GIVES A SHIT WHAT TRUMP AND CLINTON HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE NIGHTCLUB SHOOTER MURDER IS BAD WE KNOW ALREADY"

"HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME WAS OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO GET WITH THE TIMES YOU FUCKS"

No amount of disdain for these wretches is enough.

Bananamatic wrote:
why not just call him a cuck and then play video games for 3 hours


Because we played all the video games and now they're boring.

We also don't use "cuck" here. It's an inferior noun that doesn't specify whether the person in question is a cuckold, a cuckee, or a cucker. Very different things, those.

Quote:
Quash will never admit that he's wrong about anything because he's too brain-washed by right wing propaganda, and convinced that he's superior to everyone who is left of himself because he knows the truth.


He admitted he was lying once.

I don't follow the quash - magnet lovefest very closely however so there could be more.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:01 pm 



Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Posts: 929
Location: 横浜
brokenhalo wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Bananamatic wrote:
what makes you post those long ass paragraphs and how long does making such a post take

The side effects of having more knowledge about a certain topic than most people do to the point of transcendence and the need to call out bullshit


Exactly. It's just a shame it's wasted trying to argue with a cultist. Quash will never admit that he's wrong about anything because he's too brain-washed by right wing propaganda, and convinced that he's superior to everyone who is left of himself because he knows the truth.


This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:12 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 4242
Location: Berlin, Germany
quash wrote:
This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:



This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:13 pm 


Banned User
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 488
Drain the swamp! Suspend disbelief!
_________________
"A bleeding heart welcomes the sharks."


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:38 pm 



Joined: 06 May 2014
Posts: 102
BryanM wrote:
Talking about mirror worlds, I was checking in on Hamon and Mélenchon, to see if they can get their asses unified and win the damn election. (So far it looks like a "no".)

I'm kind of surprised you've heard about this in the US.
I hope they do but they probably won't, because it means that one of them has to step down.
Hamon can't because it would mean that the Socialist Party has no candidate after being in power for five years, which throws them several steps down the ladder. And Mélenchon won't unless the other guys basically accept his whole program and throw out of the party all the members of the previous government.
A unified left does not sound very likely, but I'd love to be wrong. If it doesn't happen, we'll have either bankers or fascists in charge of the country.

Still better than Trump, I guess.
_________________
Image


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:50 pm 



Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Posts: 929
Location: 横浜
CIT wrote:
quash wrote:
This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:



This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:

This... isn't funny or creative. Or applicable, even. Did you take your meds today?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:54 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 972
BulletMagnet wrote:
cut upper-end taxes and lower regulations and all the rich people will do so much investing, so much hiring, all the good jobs will come back overnight, it'll be amazing, so much winning yeeaaahhh

From what little I know, the USA already has the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world, which puts a tighter leash on startup businesses and is only an encouraging factor for corporations to move their funds offshore through tax deferral, meaning they already pay a lower effective tax rate than the domestic one. The rich Reaganomics is 'supposed' to benefit are already not paying the money they are supposed to be paying.

On top of which, half of the American working population (circa 120 million) work in small businesses with under 500 employees, businesses most of which can't even make use of fancy loopholes or hire an expert to set up a tax haven in Ireland, and would most likely invest that money into the company to expand and create jobs. A tax rate as high as America's now largely acts as a burden on smaller businesses, while the way I see it, it barely even affects larger corporations who can get away richer through legal loopholes and move their businesses offshore where it's more profitable. Ideally a corporate tax reform should close any loopholes currently being abused on top of simplifying regulations, though I don't see that ever happening.
_________________
Xyga wrote:
chum wrote:
the thing is that we actually go way back and have known each other on multiple websites, first clashing in a Naruto forum.

Liar. I've known you only from latexmachomen.com and pantysniffers.org forums.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:01 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 1201
Location: philly suburbs
quash wrote:
This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:


Reading your posts is like watching a child argue with his parents. Usually children grow up and realize they weren't the smartest person in the room. You're the exception.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:03 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 13139
Location: Chicago
Durandal wrote:
From what little I know, the USA already has the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world,


Japan's is effectively higher. There are two brackets. 22% or 30% on the federal level. Your company has to pay local taxes though which means your company moves to HK or Singpoare. O.o This is killing the foreign finance business in Japan, which is a ton of dough. The high end housing market is like half of what it was in the early 2000's.
_________________
RegalSin wrote:
New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:33 pm 



Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Posts: 929
Location: 横浜
brokenhalo wrote:
quash wrote:
This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:


Reading your posts is like watching a child argue with his parents. Usually children grow up and realize they weren't the smartest person in the room. You're the exception.


I am, indeed, exceptional. Thanks for noticing.

And if you aren't smarter than your parents, you should think of the implications of that.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:41 pm 


Banned User
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 488
The delusional cult of Stefan Molyneux.
_________________
"A bleeding heart welcomes the sharks."


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:46 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 2374
Durandal wrote:
BulletMagnet wrote:
cut upper-end taxes and lower regulations and all the rich people will do so much investing, so much hiring, all the good jobs will come back overnight, it'll be amazing, so much winning yeeaaahhh

From what little I know, the USA already has the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world, which puts a tighter leash on startup businesses and is only an encouraging factor for corporations to move their funds offshore through tax deferral, meaning they already pay a lower effective tax rate than the domestic one. The rich Reaganomics is 'supposed' to benefit are already not paying the money they are supposed to be paying.

On top of which, half of the American working population (circa 120 million) work in small businesses with under 500 employees, businesses most of which can't even make use of fancy loopholes or hire an expert to set up a tax haven in Ireland, and would most likely invest that money into the company to expand and create jobs. A tax rate as high as America's now largely acts as a burden on smaller businesses, while the way I see it, it barely even affects larger corporations who can get away richer through legal loopholes and move their businesses offshore where it's more profitable. Ideally a corporate tax reform should close any loopholes currently being abused on top of simplifying regulations, though I don't see that ever happening.


No! Wrong!

Corporate tax cuts don't benefit small businesses. When people are talking about corporate taxes, they're talking about C-type corporations. The vast majority of small businesses are LLCs (Limited Liability Companies). LLCs don't pay corporate taxes, the company earnings are part of the owner's personal income tax.

What's more, high corporate taxes encourage research and development. Buh? How does that work? R&D is tax-deductible. You give the company the choice of either losing all of $X to uncle sam, or instead spending that $X on R&D that might make the company a buck down the road. When corporate taxes are lowered, that incentive to spend money on long-term R&D instead of pulling it out of the company and putting it into your pockets quickly is removed. And right now the culture of CEOs in America is get in, make a fast buck, and golden parachute out of the burning building.

The biggest determiner for whether business will blossom in an area isn't low taxes, it's infrastructure. You invented a new widget, you can start a new company in bumfuck nowhere that has a zero percent tax rate, but you'll have to build your own facility, dig your own well, make do with substandard internet, hire a workforce out of a low-education small population where you can't afford to be picky, and move these widgets on gravel roads. OR you can set up the company in a big city that has existing facilities to rent, modern sewage and high-speed internet, a huge educated local population to chose your workers from, and a large variety of modern transportation options, at the price of paying a larger share of your eventual profits to pay for all these services. That's why all the biggest richest cities in the world are mostly port cities.

Stop using "family" analogies when talking about the financial activities corporations and nations.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush: 2017 Edition
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:25 pm 


User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 4242
Location: Berlin, Germany
quash wrote:
CIT wrote:
quash wrote:
This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:



This is a form of high satire, whether you intended for it to be or not.

I needed a good laugh. Thanks. :lol:

This... isn't funny or creative. Or applicable, even. Did you take your meds today?



Wrong! It's highly funny. By the way, I have a great sense of humor — it's true! And it's tremendously creative! And it's so applicable, nothing else has ever been that applicable.

Your sense of humor on the other hand, it's terrible. A failure. So sad!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4933 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 ... 165  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Space Pilot 3K template by Jakob Persson
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group