Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Ed Oscuro]

Can you guys stop indulging his racelord problems and start indulging my Ghostbusters problems

: angry :

I know man, feelsbad. I got a chuckle out of "inert larvae," don't worry. Definitely agreed on that point, it's apparent they wasted the second film on ensuring Weaver would never want to appear in another. tbh it's much more entertaining than this:

At the very least let's spare a thought for the troops that would like to be home on Thanksgiving.

Of all the things I can't stand from liberals, the laughable facade of caring about the military has got to be at or near the top of the list.

A response from the author of "I hope you are going to volunteer for Hilary's wars" himself. How droll!

It's funny how you guys claim to care about taxes and costs, but when the 'god emperor' declares it to be a good idea, you lap it right up. Sending the troops to the border, where they are apparently done with stringing up the concertina wire and left making sure militia members don't steal US Army materiel, cost $72 million dollars, plus another $138 million for a similar mission since April, plus whatever costs will be incurred for keeping them there beyond Christmas. That's some damn expensive wire.

Keep on scraping the bottom of the barrel, bubba.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone else!

[Mischief Maker]

Don't worry, neocons will get the rope too, but at least they're more honest about being modern day slave drivers. They at least have the decency to create the veterans they don't care about by sending them to fight wars that don't do anything for the country they're supposedly fighting for, and the decency to make sure there's always a carrot at the end of the stick, even if it's not what it used to be.

[...]

But liberals? Not only do you not care, you actively vilify servicemembers, too. The only time you ever bother to mention them with anything less than complete disdain is when you think it'll score points with military families and those generally sympathetic toward the cause, because the military itself, by and large, cannot stand your constant meddling in its affairs.

So lemme get this straight:

Neocons are slave drivers who start decade-spanning wars over lies. They send you to die in godforsaken countries for meaningless causes to enrich themselves. Then they add insult to injury by cutting veteran's benefits and handing over the massively bloated military budgets to their old college drinking buddies at Lockheed in return for kickbacks.

But, you suspect liberals don't really love you as much as they say they do, so it's all a wash? Or that actually makes the liberals worse?

Man, reading your posts is like watching the world's most passive-aggressive gay porno. A neocon with no lube is violently fucking your ass bloody, but while this is happening you glare at me and say, "Oh yeah? Well you don't nuzzle my ears like I want you to!"

[quash]

Neocons are slave drivers who start decade-spanning wars over lies. They send you to die in godforsaken countries for meaningless causes to enrich themselves. Then they add insult to injury by cutting veteran's benefits and handing over the massively bloated military budgets to their old college drinking buddies at Lockheed in return for kickbacks.

Mostly correct. Don't worry, I'm tired of their shit too, but they at least don't tell us to run after tying our shoes together. Democrats do most of the same shit, but they turn around and try to cut military funding in the same breath.

But, you suspect liberals don't really love you as much as they say they do, so it's all a wash? Or that actually makes the liberals worse?

It's that a large portion of you haven't the slightest clue as to what it is the military does, or even is supposed to do, and it reflects in how the military has changed under Democrat rule. Clinton fucked the military big time, but he presided over it in a time of peace so he largely got away with it. As for Obama? Strap yourself in. This doesn't even cover some of the biggest issues under his tenure, such as repeated deployments for service members to the tune of 4+ times since he took office, but it should give you a good enough idea.

Keep on scraping the bottom of the barrel, bubba.

You unironically agree with that cartoon, don't you?

[BryanM]

In case you somehow didn't see this possibility coming, Clinton's strategy for her 2020 run is to be a crappier version of Trump. The only solace I feel is even Peter Daou thinks this idea is completely shit.

[Rob]

In case you somehow didn't see this possibility coming, Clinton's strategy for her 2020 run is to be a crappier version of Trump.

No, she's just more politically aware than you, which isn't to say very. She doesn't even pretend to recognize the legitimacy of grievances or the existence of victims (she doesn't "know why at this moment that [right-wing populism] is so attractive to people") - she just knows they've overplayed their hand (the immigration issue is being "exploited" and they need to avoid "roiling the body politic"). She actually thinks people "want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality", as if her brand of leftist authoritarianism isn't what people are rejecting.

[BryanM]

I know man, feelsbad. I got a chuckle out of "inert larvae," don't worry. Definitely agreed on that point, it's apparent they wasted the second film on ensuring Weaver would never want to appear in another.

It was kind of amusing how she didn't want to be in the game, thinking it would be crap, but changed her mind once everyone else was on board with it. But too late in production for them to add her in.

The cameos they were tossed into in Answer the Call were just... argh. Pointless, and actively brings down the narrative's quality. It's like the robots in the Star Wars prequels, " 'member this character?!" Or seeing a distant elderly inactive family member once a year, sad. A much better movie would have had Winston training rookies or something.

[Rob]

Today in the New York Times. A peek inside the mind of a "progressive".

[Mischief Maker]

So what you're saying is you want a safe space?

[quash]

Haha man you totally owned him. Not wanting your own government to subsidize your replacement with a more desperate demographic is totally the same as not wanting to hear ideas that conflict with your worldview.

[Mischief Maker]

The article Rob was quoting has nothing to do with government subsidies. It's about white supremacists freaking out over census projections. The paragraph in question is about how progressives are apparently monsters because they aren't interested in catering to the delicate feelings of racists and sugercoating news about this demographic shift.

[quash]

I had just finished reading the article myself, thanks. It has nothing to do with white supremacists and everything to do with average white people realizing that they're being played by voting Democrat once the obfuscation, like you're practicing right now, is removed from public discourse.

And the government is subsidizing it, because they're in bed with the same industries that want it.

[ED-057]

I think that many people complaining about cost of living would benefit greatly by actually investigating the issue in some detail. I for one am considering moving to a rural area in the medium term, because I saw plots for sale with more acreage than I could ever use for anything with annual taxes under a grand. Currently I live in an area where propertly prices are low but taxes are relatively high (no doubt there is some cause and effect there). Since I first moved out of my dad's house I've been diligent about minimizing my expenses, and when my job became shittier I was all the more focused on it. If I could cut down the property tax bill as well, then even working part time would keep the coffers filled. On a social security check I'd live like a king.

I can only assume that people complaining about social security being insufficient have the misfortune of spending it all on medical bills. Either that or they take a high-cost life style for granted.

High costs are to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. If nobody was willing to blow $100/mo for a cellphone, $100/mo for TV, $2000/mo for rent, or six figures on tuition, then the market wouldn't be flooded with those offerings. If you believe that rip-offs are undesirable then consider doing everyone a favor and not incentivizing them. Vote with your wallet, by keeping it closed.

Of course, what I'm saying is blasphemy against consumer capitalism. People who are dependent on continuous economic growth for their income want you to bust your butt and spend every last cent on crap you don't need. They don't want minimalism. The system is oddly backwards that way. If you want a widget, you don't run an ad describing the widget to search for a supplier. Instead the supplier who already produces widgets runs the ad to tell you that you need to buy it because reasons. At the same time robots can eliminate jobs, there are people falling over themselves trying to create jobs or preserve existing jobs, even when they amount to digging a hole and filling it in again.

Anyway, I'm going to try and dredge up that thread about low cost food.

[Mischief Maker]

Prove that you can live on less to justify us paying you less!

[quash]

High costs are to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. If nobody was willing to blow $100/mo for a cellphone, $100/mo for TV, $2000/mo for rent, or six figures on tuition, then the market wouldn't be flooded with those offerings. If you believe that rip-offs are undesirable then consider doing everyone a favor and not incentivizing them. Vote with your wallet, by keeping it closed.

On principle, I agree. The problem is that for too many people, there are no viable, or even any alternatives at all. How much choice did you have in who your ISP would be? What about who had the best cell service in your area? I'd love nothing more than to not pay a power company that starts fires and literally gets away with murder, but PG&E has a state sponsored monopoly on the power grid.

Our model is broken. Other countries that model themselves after what America used to be have it right. We should go back to that, but we won't be doing that any time soon.

[ED-057]

You're right that some costs are difficult to avoid. I only have one option for wired broadband (not counting a leased line...), nevertheless in 2015 I cancelled and for a year I made do with nothing but a 3G modem. Later I signed up for the cable again when they had an offer that was more palatable. Cell service is spotty but at least I have the choice between expensive and spotty or cheap and spotty. As for energy bills, I feel your pain. I try to keep usage down with LED lights and whatnot, and I added some insulation hoping to reduce heating costs but there's only so much that can be done on a 70-year-old building without tearing all the walls open.

[Zen]

So what you're saying is you want a safe space?

No.
He was pointing out that the Unconventional Warfare tactic of forced demographic shift, is not and never was, a secret and that furthermore, the number of Westerners
(that is to say, White people) cognisant of this fact is growing by the day.

Your refusal to acknowledge the issue that Rob pointed out, was perfect, really.

By the way, MM, the "no, you!" reversal of the snowflake meme . . . why?!

Also; again with the insane, Marxist, transvestite?
And what is his unwarranted aggression all about? Why is "Catgirl" carrying a baseball bat across his shoulders?
What does he think he is going to do with that?!

Prove that you can live on less to justify us paying you less!

AH! The perfect ending. Let us all sojourn to the Disco-tekka!


Koch, Catgirls and bolshy posturing. Jesus Christ! What are you Mischief Maker, some kind of leftist?!

[Ed Oscuro]

White people control the government of the US. You have some black people too, and hispanics - all of whom are, under Rob's theory, self-interested in their own groups. None of these groups have a vested interest in reducing their own political power.

Btw,

In case you somehow didn't see this possibility coming, Clinton's strategy for her 2020 run is to be a crappier version of Trump. The only solace I feel is even Peter Daou thinks this idea is completely shit.

Well, I think that's a wrong way to characterize it, even if the latter-day liberal bogeymen of Clinton and Blair are supporting it, they are ultimately right on that particular issue.

Ofc I agree with your criticism that there is nothing about the economics which Bernie championed, and is effectively half of the story. Clinton might have gotten a win with more discussion of immigration, but Trump would know to find some new issues to harp on for any that Clinton tried to co-opt, plus there is the quash factor of simply not believing liberals. You can't really tack right towards groups that hate you, personally, so the idea may as well be ignored. The recent midterms seem like good evidence of this, for better or worse.

Despite what I have said about the virtues of free movement and diverse societies, the better strategy is to try and fight bad conditions elsewhere (metaphorically speaking) to prevent the mass exodus of people. Regardless of the right-wing misapprehension of the issue, immigration without limits is unsustainable. Of course, we don't have proof that the current economy or worldwide population is sustainable either.

One thing we have to be aware of though - while we argue about immigration countries like China will be creating a brain drain, catering to the most profitable immigrants.

[BryanM]

On the "winning elections" vector, kicking your base in the face and begging for your enemies to help you is not a great strategy. It is literally that dril quote about licking the boots of your enemy until they break down in tears and start begging for mercy. On the policy vector, it's stabbing at symptoms instead of systematic causes.

It would be analogous to if Trump decided to make running on gun control a central plank of his campaign. So laughably stupid tactically that everyone would be befuddled. "What the fuck is this guy doing? He's supposed to be a republican."

[Rob]

None of these groups have a vested interest in reducing their own political power.

It's a mystery.

One thing we have to be aware of though - while we argue about immigration

Any answer would draw from the three elements that make up legal immigration in the Western world: an economic stream, a family stream, and a humanitarian stream.

Article felt like a description of what's already taking place being presented as potential solution to what's already taking place, but enlightening piece from Krishnadev Calamur on where the never ending millions to the West should be coming from (seems like the "any answer" might always benefit Indians who would like to escape the mess Indians have made of India).

For more immigration musings from people who should not be offering advice, a little while back saw a writer for the New Yorker, Osita Nwanevu, comment on how driving through America reveals it to be still so much "nothing and cows" (and white people like "Elmer Whoever") and that there's still a whole lot of room for more people (which is a good thing since Nigeria is bursting at the seams with 'em). No consideration for agriculture, wildlife, fresh water supply, waste disposal, quality of life, etc. - the kind of Third World non-thinking that results in squalid places like Nigeria and India.

countries like China will be creating a brain drain, catering to the most profitable immigrants.

China will be making their own humans while our average IQ drops lower than the 98 it's already dropped to.

[Rob]

Just neocon things.

[quash]

https://twitter.com/WesJayDee1/status/1 ... 85024?s=19


I'm speechless. That some writer somewhere thought that Judge fucking Dredd would side with illegal immigrants speaks volumes to the naivety of the left.

[Zen]

https://twitter.com/WesJayDee1/status/1 ... 85024?s=19


I'm speechless. That some writer somewhere thought that Judge fucking Dredd would side with illegal immigrants speaks volumes to the naivety of the left.

The glorious thing about Dredd, is that he can't be cucked.

He was conceptualised as an figure of such fascistic extreme, that you were meant to laugh and scorn.

There was basically three fatal flaws with this plan;

1. The audience was White!
2. They made him a very White, warrior-priest of the law.
3. They gave him a uniform that Hugo Boss himself, would have wept tears of joy upon designing!



Obviously, the result was not what they had originally intended and they have been trying to make us laugh at him ever since.

And, as you note in your post, it still doesn't work.

[Rob]

Mischief Maker: Are you getting the Fox coverage of the caravan you were looking for? I'm seeing some disorderly, rock-chucking mobs rushing the border. Thrashing at the gates is how asylum seeking is done these days, I guess. It's just amazing that even with saboteurs coaching these people they still can't even pretend to care about appearing civilized.



They just want a better life (paid for by you!).

Mexican Mayor Blasts Migrants, Calls Them ‘Pot Smokers’ And ‘Bums’ As 108 Caravan Members Are Arrested

“We do not have the necessary and sufficient infrastructure to fully attend to these people to give them a decent space… I will not spend Tijuanans’ money, I will not bring Tijuana into debt now, in the same way, we haven’t done so these past two years.”

Mexicans don't want parasitic bums.

[Mischief Maker]

Mischief Maker: Are you getting the Fox coverage of the caravan you were looking for?

Well yeah, now that it's clear there are runoff elections coming up in December.

[Ed Oscuro]

Mischief Maker: Are you getting the Fox coverage of the caravan you were looking for? I'm seeing some disorderly, rock-chucking mobs rushing the border.

And they got turned back by tear gas, and Mexico is going to deport them.

Something worth thinking about:
http://nautil.us/issue/66/clockwork/her ... for-dinner

Just the usual stuff that's more important than a tiny tear in a well-defended fence.

[Rob]

a tiny tear in a well-defended fence.

This entire spectacle is not just about a segment of rickety fence along a not so well-defended border or this particular batch of downtrodden rock-throwers (a good portion of which will undoubtedly make it through some way or another). It's emblematic of the problem of infinite Central Americans entering and burdening the country, which is a quantity and quality problem.

Something worth thinking about:
http://nautil.us/issue/66/clockwork/her ... for-dinner

Desiccation makes it possible to cultivate massive tracts of farmland and feed billions of people profitably.

So what are your thoughts? How do we produce food for billions of people without "massive tracts" that require potentially unsafe and environmentally destructive practices?

[Specineff]

Cohen admits to having lied about Trump's knowledge of Moscow project:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/opin ... eller.html

[Ed Oscuro]

@ Rob: A bit late to your reply, but Trump's political stunt cost a lot of money and did very little to help ICE and the National Guard deal with that incident. For his part, Trump was engaging in despicable commentary about shooting the migrants, which would have exposed ICE and the military forces to legal jeopardy had they acted as he seemed to desire - rocks were reportedly thrown after all! At the same time most of the money was wasted simply getting the Guard and equipment to the border, with very little of the tax dollars spent on actually helping the situation. Of course the military has funds enough to take care of unusual missions, and can be deployed easily from the President's perspective, but the mission was still ill-conceived to put it mildly. A realistic plan would not have involved hyperbole about massacring migrants, and would have put more money into shoring up the physical defenses and giving ICE more tools to handle the situation.

The scene of migrants being tear gassed is another black eye as far as many Americans and foreign viewers are concerned; I personally do not know how ICE should or could have acted so I am not going to blindly condemn them as you apparently thought. My focus is simply on the fact that President Trump's dreams and inclinations tend toward bloody slaughter for political purposes. Back in the real world, it does not take much to see that a real leader would have worked to tamp down the situation, and made sure any tax dollars were spent more wisely on border security. But these days, taking credit is apparently as good as doing the work, so people are putting plaques on border wall segments paid for before Trump, falsely claiming that Trump had something to do with them.

Something new for today - something old, something interesting...by which I mean utterly horrifying, and from the people who were supposed to protect the children from Pizzagate:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... 97825.html

Everybody's here, from Smilin' Bill and Donald Trump in the periphery (?), to Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr.

The bottom line for national politics is this: Basically Trump put a prosecutor, who apparently broke the law to protect a serial child abuser with powerful connections, into his Cabinet as Secretary of Labor.

[Rob]

Protecting the border with some degree of believability is not a stunt if it's made routine. If approaching the border with an aim to pass illegally is made an undesirable proposition, the billions spent would be a bargain - part of the cost of maintaining a functioning society. It was reported that people were discouraged and leaving, which should show how much of a farce the asylum nonsense is. If that wasn't already made clear by the group's marching through the entirety of Mexico to Tijuana, with all of the barrier breaking and scuffles in between.

Trump was engaging in despicable commentary about shooting the migrants,

Migrants who throw rocks?

My focus is simply on the fact that President Trump's dreams and inclinations tend toward bloody slaughter for political purposes.

Nah, no one who seriously wants anything done about the border problem desires a "bloody slaughter", and especially not for "political purposes". A complete wall that can not be cleared easily is needed to discourage crossers and minimize violent confrontations. That is a morally justifiable position that would not be bolstered by an unnecessary body count.

[Specineff]

A complete wall that can not be cleared easily is needed to discourage crossers and minimize violent confrontations. That is a morally justifiable position that would not be bolstered by an unnecessary body count.

No need to use a cannon to kill a mosquito. Especially if there isn't enough iron to build the cannon. Or can't even find the iron in the first place.

I mean... it's not like even a single block of concrete has been laid since "Day one construction" "started" two years ago.