I would've expected something juicier from Anon… Maybe they will release more crap in the near future?
Why bother with an editor's note? As if people need tattoos to see Trump supporters as white supremacist fucks lmao
I would've expected something juicier from Anon… Maybe they will release more crap in the near future?
Why bother with an editor's note? As if people need tattoos to see Trump supporters as white supremacist fucks lmao
House negro .
Dude not cool. You may not like Carson, but calling him a racial slur is uncalled for.
Dude not cool. You may not like Carson, but calling him a racial slur is uncalled for.
It's not so much I don't like him personally as much as I just don't like him ideologically,
him sucking up to Trump like he is definitely doesn't help. Also if you can come up with a
more fitting term that fits what Carson is trying to desperately do I'm all ears.
It's not so much I don't like him personally as much as I just don't like him ideologically,
him sucking up to Trump like he is definitely doesn't help. Also if you can come up with a
more fitting term that fits what Carson is trying to desperately do I'm all ears.
wow. I think that term works. you did it.
If they can get his tax returns out, THAT would be interesting.
Yeah, especially to see what kind of "bombshell" exists within as claimed by Mitt Romney. :ninja:
wow. I think that term works. you did it.
Probably would've went for that if it weren't such a basic and overused term and I weren't in a decidedly snarky mood when I read the story.
Plus Trump already has enough suck-ups with Christie, Rick Scott, and that grating chick
who thinks bullet necklaces are chique.
Yeah that was cutting edge snark mate. No one can accuse your vocabulary of being basic as fuck after dropping that gem.
Awww man… how disappointing. One Piece fans that are liberals. I always knew the part of me that still enjoys comic books was a little immature. I know you guys are enjoying your circle jerk in the echo chamber, but as a fellow One Piece fan I feel obligated to help you out. (not with the circle jerk of course...)
Here's a good place to start:
Evan Sayet is a genius with a hilarious delivery.
So anyway here's a funny picture of Marco Rubio.
The Heritage Foundation - "Our ideas don't work but that's no reason not to implement them."
tag urself, im bohemian zombie
Can't tell if satire or waste of life.
Can't tell if satire or waste of life.
That's how you know it's good satire (…?)
Anyway I'm the central banking trillionaire
Well shit shows what I knew:ninja:
lol
Showing support for the guy literal nazis are voting for aside, I think there's something kind of pathetic about endorsing a guy who previously compared you to a pedophile
lol
Showing support for the guy literal nazis are voting for aside, I think there's something kind of pathetic about endorsing a guy who previously compared you to a pedophile
Indecision 2016 - Willful, Shillful Puppets
I get the impression from their statements that this is just the opening salvos and that there will be much more to come.
It's possible, but Trump follows the Tyrion Lannister doctrine masterfully. What dirt could they possibly dig up on him that would stick?
The relevant GoT quote:
Tyrion: Let me give you some advice bastard. Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.
For the record though, I think that started backfiring as soon as he stood behind the KKK's support. :P
Awww man… how disappointing. One Piece fans that are liberals. I always knew the part of me that still enjoys comic books was a little immature. I know you guys are enjoying your circle jerk in the echo chamber, but as a fellow One Piece fan I feel obligated to help you out. (not with the circle jerk of course...)
Here's a good place to start:Evan Sayet is a genius with a hilarious delivery.
Yes, it's rly weird that this board has libdem commie scum considering how pro-authoritarian, pro-right wing One Piece is. Long live admiral Akainu!!!
One Piece is a critique on modern society's idolization of thugs (see also: rap music) and Oda will show us all the error of our ways when Akainu graphically executes all the Strawhats in the final chapter.
Awww man… how disappointing. One Piece fans that are liberals. I always knew the part of me that still enjoys comic books was a little immature. I know you guys are enjoying your circle jerk in the echo chamber, but as a fellow One Piece fan I feel obligated to help you out. (not with the circle jerk of course...)
Here's a good place to start:Evan Sayet is a genius with a hilarious delivery.
Scrolling down in the comments I find this:
Liberalism is worse than mere Nihilism. It is indeed actively evil and destructive. We see this most evidently in the liberal attack on childhood innocence and the family units that protect them.
0_0;
It's always hilarious when someone tries to insult an entire audience for reading a children's comic.
When they themselves have taken the time to find a forum dedicated to said comic, joined years ago, and have made many comments on the subject having read and continuing to read said comic seriously themselves.
Awww man… how disappointing. One Piece fans that are liberals. I always knew the part of me that still enjoys comic books was a little immature. I know you guys are enjoying your circle jerk in the echo chamber, but as a fellow One Piece fan I feel obligated to help you out. (not with the circle jerk of course...)
Here's a good place to start:
Oh, beautiful. We are so off to a good start when the first thing you do is equate liking comic books with immaturity. As if A: Liking comic books = Being Liberal, and therefore "Being Liberal = Being Immature". Way to TOTALLY bring us into your way of thinking by appealing to our logic, rather than just outright ATTACKING us right out of the gate and making us TOTALLY feel like listening to you.
First off, good use of the "Heritage Organization" video. I bet you're anti-LGBT too? If you believe in such moral absolutism as this man in the video is preaching.
For anyone who didn't watch it… I only got a few minutes in myself, but here's a couple of actual things the guy in the video says:
"I've got to assume that everyone in this room agrees that the democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to propose to you it's not 'just about every issue' it's quite literally 'every issue' and it's not just wrong, it's wrong as wrong can be. It's 180 degrees from right, it's diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful."
and
"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the variables that lead to failure over the variables that lead to success."
Yes, evil. Liberals are not just wrong, we are EVIL!!!
I have an entire rant against this in my head, but I have to go to work. Just.... lol.
Moral Absolutism guys: Liberals vs. Conservatives is TOTALLY a Black and white issue with absolutely NO shades of grey or redeeming qualities.
Oh, beautiful. We are so off to a good start when the first thing you do is equate liking comic books with immaturity. As if A: Liking comic books = Being Liberal, and therefore "Being Liberal = Being Immature". Way to TOTALLY bring us into your way of thinking by appealing to our logic, rather than just outright ATTACKING us right out of the gate and making us TOTALLY feel like listening to you.
First off, good use of the "Heritage Organization" video. I bet you're anti-LGBT too? If you believe in such moral absolutism as this man in the video is preaching.
For anyone who didn't watch it… I only got a few minutes in myself, but here's a couple of actual things the guy in the video says:
"I've got to assume that everyone in this room agrees that the democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to propose to you it's not 'just about every issue' it's quite literally 'every issue' and it's not just wrong, it's wrong as wrong can be. It's 180 degrees from right, it's diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful."
and
"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the variables that lead to failure over the variables that lead to success."Yes, evil. Liberals are not just wrong, we are EVIL!!!
I have an entire rant against this in my head, but I have to go to work. Just.... lol.
Moral Absolutism guys: Liberals vs. Conservatives is TOTALLY a Black and white issue with absolutely NO shades of grey or redeeming qualities.
I'm not anti-LGBT-ect., neither is Evan Sayet. If anything I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious invention in the first place, why would the government have anything to say about religious activities. Conservatives lost that fight the second it was decided government would be involved with marriage. All the government does is punish me by combining mine and my fiances income, but hey – if someone wants to be punished for loving another person and they're not religious then have at it. Get married by the government.
Just watch the whole video before you rant. You just listened to his thesis, he proves it in the video.
Hilary made an appearance on one of my favorite shows this week. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be but, that might as well be her campaign slogan. Not that bad. Still that like 6 seconds where she enters the room and the music is playing is top notch.
Because aside from taxing mutual incomes, there come a lot of other perks. Visiting and custody rights, mutual ownership of property (like houses and cars), child custody, medical benefits from workplaces, citizenship (and voting rights) if the spouse is from another country, things like that.
Marriage hasn't been about just religion for a very long time.
The government doesn't punish people for being married. Actually, people who file their tax returns as married get much larger tax breaks than people who file individually. This is one of the main points of contention when same sex marriage isn't legally recognized. Why should same sex couples not have the same opportunity for higher tax breaks?
Also, how do you know that marriage was originally a religious thing? Pretty sure people were getting married (entering into socially recognized, long term, monogamous relationships) long before the Christian church existed… maybe even long before organized religion existed. Hell, there are even other species that basically get married.
Yeah, marriage was a political thing before it was a religious thing and was a common practice of powerful families seeking alliances. You know, like that thing that's happening to Sanji in One Piece right now.
Hilary made an appearance on one of my favorite shows this week. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be but, that might as well be her campaign slogan. Not that bad. Still that like 6 seconds where she enters the room and the music is playing is top notch.
I wonder if they asked Bernie for a spot as well, considering how New York Jewish the show is and its main audience probably votes Bernie as well.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I'm not anti-LGBT-ect., neither is Evan Sayet. If anything I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious invention in the first place, why would the government have anything to say about religious activities. Conservatives lost that fight the second it was decided government would be involved with marriage. All the government does is punish me by combining mine and my fiances income, but hey – if someone wants to be punished for loving another person and they're not religious then have at it. Get married by the government.
Just watch the whole video before you rant. You just listened to his thesis, he proves it in the video.
You still need to explain your surprise at One Piece readers being generally liberal. Do you understand themes and subtext or does it need to be told to you through Randian speeches?
Pettily framing marriage as an onerous thing that "the gays might as well have because it sucks anyway" is a classic code for "I'm a social conservative who's still bigoted, but just a little more secretly now." It'd be too compassionate and humane to just concede something nice to the LGBT community, so you have to pretend you never really gave a shit.
Anyway, there's hospital visitation rights, tax benefits (what conservative doesn't understand that of course the government pushes the "traditional" married-with-kids family model via financial incentives? That's family values 101) , sharing insurance with one's spouse, SS benefits, veteran's benefits, immigration/visa benefits, etc. Plenty of tangible benefits that were previously being denied. Why pretend that that's all irrelevant? Hmmmm?
Yeah, marriage was a political thing before it was a religious thing and was a common practice of powerful families seeking alliances. You know, like that thing that's happening to Sanji in One Piece right now.
You mean that stupid children's comic book for children?
@CCC:
Pettily framing marriage as an onerous thing that "the gays might as well have because it sucks anyway" is a classic code for "I'm a social conservative who's still bigoted, but just a little more secretly now." It'd be too compassionate and humane to just concede something nice to the LGBT community, so you have to pretend you never really gave a shit.
That's kind of incorrect. A lot of the LGBTQ community originally saw the outsider natures of their relationships as an opportunity to redefine what relationships were and didn't car about marriage equality. Radical queer politics is typically anti-marriage. Personally, I'm anti-marriage because it grants opportunities on the basis that you are a romantic individual conforming to whatever is viewed as a normal romantic relationship and thus incentivizes the formation of those specific relationships.
That's not to say that Silk's points are any less dumb or made in any less of a bad spirit, just that real critiques of marriage actually typically come from the left.
The government doesn't punish people for being married. Actually, people who file their tax returns as married get much larger tax breaks than people who file individually. This is one of the main points of contention when same sex marriage isn't legally recognized. Why should same sex couples not have the same opportunity for higher tax breaks?
Also, how do you know that marriage was originally a religious thing? Pretty sure people were getting married (entering into socially recognized, long term, monogamous relationships) long before the Christian church existed… maybe even long before organized religion existed. Hell, there are even other species that basically get married.
Marriage definitely does hurt a couple tax-wise if the sum of the couples income pushes them into a higher tax bracket, and it hurts. Sure, monogamy has always been around, but you'll be hard pressed to find the term marriage used in history and not have it affiliated with some sort of religion. Whether it was for
(@Wagomu:
Yeah, marriage was a political thing before it was a religious thing and was a common practice of powerful families seeking alliances.
)
politics or not, religion was still used as the reason for binding two together.
You mean that stupid children's comic book for children?
I think you mean Graphic Novel. One Piece has deep, complex themes and characters. I wouldn't be caught dead reading a "Comic Book."
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
politics or not, religion was still used as the reason for binding two together.
Not even close. Like even in the Bible marriage is used for political reasons, oftentimes across religions. Look at the marriages of the Israeli kings, some of which were punished not because they married outside of their religion, but because they let their wives bring their religion into the country.
Marriage definitely does hurt a couple tax-wise if the sum of the couples income pushes them into a higher tax bracket, and it hurts.
My wife and I make much more money together than we do as individuals. But we still get larger tax breaks than we did before. I know because I'm married.
I kind of get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.
That's not to say that Silk's points are any less dumb or made in any less of a bad spirit, just that real critiques of marriage actually typically come from the left.
No, for sure, but we definitely saw more on the subtly-homophobic, moneyed right bringing up similar points once gay marriage became a hot-button political issue. Because suddenly they had motive to say "who cares."
And personally, I agree with your stance. Financial incentives for "traditional" families feel weird, gross, and outdated (child tax, please!), but if they're there, then obviously everyone should be allowed to benefit.
@CCC:
Pettily framing marriage as an onerous thing that "the gays might as well have because it sucks anyway" is a classic code for "I'm a social conservative who's still bigoted, but just a little more secretly now." It'd be too compassionate and humane to just concede something nice to the LGBT community, so you have to pretend you never really gave a shit.
Anyway, there's hospital visitation rights, tax benefits (what conservative doesn't understand that of course the government pushes the "traditional" married-with-kids family model via financial incentives? That's family values 101) , sharing insurance with one's spouse, SS benefits, veteran's benefits, immigration/visa benefits, etc. Plenty of tangible benefits that were previously being denied. Why pretend that that's all irrelevant? Hmmmm?
And calling me a bigot without proof is code for being a complete jerk. (not that I care, just pointing out the hypocrisy) I clearly said I don't care who loves who. I also have no care in the world about who the government marries. I'm not sure what you mean by "conservative doesn't understand that of course the government pushes…101" Conservatives push for tax breaks for family units all the time.
@CCC:
No, for sure, but we definitely saw more on the subtly-homophobic, moneyed right bringing up similar points once gay marriage became a hot-button political issue. Because suddenly they had motive to say "who cares."
And personally, I agree with your stance. Financial incentives for "traditional" families feel weird, gross, and outdated (child tax, please!), but if they're there, then obviously everyone should be allowed to benefit.
Then we're on the same page. For a second it sounded to me like you were painting all critique of marriage as red, but that loser's attitude of "fine, they can take it, I didn't want it anyways" is definitely there, too.
I actually watched 90% of the video, and aside from being ridiculously dated (seriously is that the most recent thing you could find) it's pretty much based entirely on "liberals' morals are different than mine and I don't understand why and therefore they are stupid". Even on the stupidest subject, I can easily see why conservatives believe the things they do. I was hoping for something a bit more challenging to my dirty liberal beliefs but he he doesn't provide anything insightful at all. And he wasn't even funny which was the poop cherry on the turd cake. 2/10 video
I gave you extra points because the comments were hilarious
Jesus, that's a 48 minute video. I tried watching, but gave up after few minutes. Has the internet really made you so immune?
I couldn't get past the part where the talking asshole spewed bullshit about abstinence.
Jesus, that's a 48 minute video. I tried watching, but gave up after few minutes. Has the internet really made you so immune?
sometimes I watch vids people link to me who swear it's a real game changer video, just to check myself I guess, and it's generally always what I expected it to be
This guy insulted me and then insulted a thing that I like so I felt like obviously the least I could do is watch this hour long video he posted
sometimes I watch vids people link to me who swear it's a real game changer video, just to check myself I guess, and it's generally always what I expected it to be
This guy insulted me and then insulted a thing that I like so I felt like obviously the least I could do is watch this hour long video he posted
Well, if that's what gets you to watch it I guess… Here's another one!
Yeah, not gonna comment on the Marriage part as folks above me are doing it quite well already. However, this I must comment on:
Just watch the whole video before you rant. You just listened to his thesis, he proves it in the video.
Ok, I didn't watch the whole video, in part because It was early morning when I first saw it amd I had to get ready for work, but also in part because it's very easy to see that his entire notion is flawed.
Your statement seems to be that I understood his thesis correctly, that he really is trying to say that "Conservatives Vs. Liberals" really is a case of Moral Absolutism and that one (Conservative) is clearly and umabiguously the "Good" and the other (Liberal) is clearly and unambiguously the "Evil". You never disputed my understanding of this notion, simply stating that if I'd watched the entire video, he'd have presented evidence to "Prove" this point.
It's funny that you call us immature but then peddle a man preeching Moral Absolutism. Moral Absolutism is probably the single most childish and ridiculous kind of moral code to a laughable degree because the only world where Moral Absolutism actually works as a system is Saturday Morning Cartoons and Silver Age Comic Books. In those medium, a bad guy can just be a bad guy because bad is bad and good is good. In the real world, you know, the one we live in? That doesn't actually work.
Let's analyze what he says in the bit of the video I DID see where he sums up his "Thesis" as you call it. He claims he started out as a "Liberal" himself and that he assumed people criticising aspects of America or American Life, whom he claims say they "Hate America" don't REALLY hate America… until 9/11 happened, and the "Liberals" he apparently knew continued to profess this apparent "Hate" for America. I assume for a moment that he might be devling into that bit of backwards logic where he assumes any and all criticism is akin to HATING something. For an example of this in action, just look back through the DC Movies thread and see the logic of every single person who pops up to "Defend" the movies against the mean ole people bashing them.
NOTHING is beyond Criticism. NOTHING. We as nation have made GREAT strides against racism, against intolerance, in the field of healthcare and medical science, in almost any concievable area we are a great nation, there is NO denying that, but to assume that we've just hit some kind of pinnacle, at any point in modern history, and that we just shouldn't bother trying to fix anything, or make anything better ever again is asinine.
If we take what he's saying at face value tho, that he ACTUALLY apparently knew self-professed "Liberals" who literally told them they "Hate America" around 9/11 then.... wow... He would have met some REAL A-holes in this case, but.... so what? All this means is that he hung out in a really bad crowd of Liberals. No one group is a monolith. This may be hard for you to understand because it goes against the concept of Moral Absolutism, but there exist people who are the EXTREME of any political view. You get ANY issue, I swear ANY issue at all, and there exist extremists who believe the most extreme version of that. I guarantee you can find Christians who think we should Stone to death people who defy the Christian Bible. This is an EXTREME View, but it DOES exist. It would, however, be a fallacy for me to state or assume that the fact that I can locate people who think like this means ALL Christians must think like this. Of course that's ridiculous, there are plenty of more moderate level-headed Christians who would never propose we kill people who go against the teachings of their faith.
See, this all comes back to the idea of Moral Absolutism being totally wrong. There are plenty of people whose political ideologies don't fit into a perfect "Conservative" or "Liberal" box. I, for example, am NOT for outright banning guns, and I'm also not for abolishing the death penalty. I DO believe we can reform our gun laws and tighten certain parts, like universal background checks, without needing to outright BAN them, but I don't think banning them in this country is realistic or necessarily "Right". And no, this isn't a liberal conspiracy to inch towards taking away guns. I do believe we can have our cake and eat it responsibly too. It's not an issue that's either A: Everyone has unfetted access to guns, or B: We take away all the guns.
What that means is this: ANYONE whose entire point is "Every Liberal/Conservative is Evil" is already doomed from the start because the point is plainly ridiculous.
I might watch that whole video when I get home because hey, I'm masochistic and I do like being able to say I listened to an opposing viewpoint. I'll even retract or change parts of my above statement if the whole video makes any good points, but if Taboo's assessment is right, and I tend to trust her judgement, I think everything I said above still applies.
So I finally decided to look a bit more into the whole Benghazi controversy that so many people are up in arms about by reading various sources on the matter. So if I got everything correct the deal is back in 2012 an attack happened where 4 Americans were killed at the time Hillary was still Secretary of State. Two things were that she had a private email account that may have had confidential emails in them that could've been easily hacked into because of the lack of firewalls or something, and the second being that there was talks about increasing security at the place the attack happened but Hillary decided not to increase security. For the first account there is no proof of the confidential information being leaked or sent on that email. Supposing there was confidential information there's no way to know that it had any effect on that attack.
As for the second part just seems like something that may not have made a difference at best, and at worst was a mistake. I would assume for where it was there would be heavy discussion and not a light decision. Then something happened that they didn't expect and those people died. Unless I'm missing something I don't see how you can make something like this such a big deal. because it wasn't like she did something to actually cause the attack to happen, or did anything severely illegal. If this is something that's supposed to be terrible, then by definition almost all politicians would be at least in the same boat. So is there something I'm missing, or is it just a nontroversy made to try and stop Hillary because they have nothing else to go off of?
Well, if that's what gets you to watch it I guess… Here's another one!
lmao Ben Shapiro
It's too late for me, the liberal media has their hooks in too deep. I'm already a slave to the luciferian illuminati
@The:
So is there something I'm missing, or is it just a nontroversy made to try and stop Hillary because they have nothing else to go off of?
The latter and Republicans have admitted it more than once.
http://www.newsweek.com/another-bad-day-benghazi-panel-384592
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nrcc-takes-down-benghazi-fundraising
Yeah, not gonna comment on the Marriage part as folks above me are doing it quite well already.
I might watch that whole video when I get home because hey, I'm masochistic and I do like being able to say I listened to an opposing viewpoint. I'll even retract or change parts of my above statement if the whole video makes any good points, but if Taboo's assessment is right, and I tend to trust her judgement, I think everything I said above still applies.
Not really. (not sure, how I offended you guys on this one. Just because I don't care about marriage of same-sex doesn't mean I'm against it). One person called me a bigot, and another refuses to understand that no matter where you look in history, even for political cause, that ultimately religion is always the "excuse" or reason to bond two people together.
Doo it! He pretty much says that your refusal to understand that ultimate right and wrong exist is what makes you a liberal. Understanding right and wrong isn't all that complicated, liberals just like to pretend it is so they don't have to live up to standards. It's the same reason that typically, if you have a competent boss, that boss more than likely leans right.
The latter and Republicans have admitted it more than once.
http://www.newsweek.com/another-bad-day-benghazi-panel-384592
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nrcc-takes-down-benghazi-fundraising
That's pretty pitiful. Just really goes to show why every time I see one of the candidates of the party start talking it just feels like a joke. I also read how the committee last year took one little thing Hillary said and tried to attack her with that. It's like my Dad said, the party really does deserve Trump.
Not really. (not sure, how I offended you guys on this one. Just because I don't care about marriage of same-sex doesn't mean I'm against it). One person called me a bigot, and another refuses to understand that no matter where you look in history, even for political cause, that ultimately religion is always the "excuse" or reason to bond two people together.
Doo it! He pretty much says that your refusal to understand that ultimate right and wrong exist is what makes you a liberal. Understanding right and wrong isn't all that complicated, liberals just like to pretend it is so they don't have to live up to standards. It's the same reason that typically, if you have a competent boss, that boss more than likely leans right.
Not going to get in the argument, because I lack the historical knowledge and other stuff to really get in depth. All I will say is people are assuming that because your posts are coming off pretty hostile. You also go into pretty Black and White territory where things are not nearly as simple as you might think it is.