Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

09-19-2017 , 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
There's nothing specifically wrong with your post, it just seems like such a non-problem. Who cares what people say about Meliana?



Of what? A young man marrying at old woman for her money? I don't have any. Even if literally none exist (obviously they do) I'm not sure how it's relevant to the other posts.
It's not about white knighting for M. Trump that's the issue, it's about implying and outright stating there's something wrong with being a whore. It's insulting to all of us regular not-married-to-the-president whores.
09-19-2017 , 12:20 AM
09-19-2017 , 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
Donald Trump Jr. Gives Up Secret Service Protection, Seeking Privacy

****ing idiot. you don't say you're seeking privacy, that makes it sound like you've got something to hide. say you're so wealthy and successful that you can afford to pay for your own private security and you're now deciding to pay for that out of your own pocket because you're such a wealthy successful patriot. idiot.
That is pretty dumb of him.

On to a question for the whore debaters some mention an “F” word. What is that word fancy?
09-19-2017 , 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
When someone hits their thumb with a hammer and says, "****!" ??

I don't believe you. I doubt you can produce one person who claims this even with the internet, but even if I'm way off there and it's .0001% of the population? Then it's because it's .0001% of the population.

If it's in the context of telling someone that you want to **** them, that's totally different and maybe, but for most people at least that's pretty personal and it really only matters if it offends that one person.

And it really does matter whether it's really a significant number of people or not.
Neither example is what I was thinking of. I am talking about saying in perhaps an office setting that our competitor is trying to f us.
09-19-2017 , 12:35 AM
09-19-2017 , 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
On to a question for the whore debaters some mention an “F” word. What is that word fancy?
09-19-2017 , 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Neither example is what I was thinking of. I am talking about saying in perhaps an office setting that our competitor is trying to f us.
I can see how that could be offensive. But, two things: like most things this is on a spectrum, and I still don't think many women find that offensive to women in particular, ie degrading or something as opposed to just being "bad language".
09-19-2017 , 01:05 AM
Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.

...

An internal email, dated Sept. 5 and sent among officials from government agencies involved in refugee issues, said that “senior leadership is questioning the assumptions used to produce the report.” A separate email said that Mr. Miller had requested a meeting to discuss the report. The Times was shown the emails on condition that the sender not be identified. Mr. Miller personally intervened in the discussions on the refugee cap to ensure that only the costs — not any fiscal benefit — of the program were considered, according to two people familiar with the talks.
09-19-2017 , 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty Lice
Wow I didn't realize a single tank was 100,000 pounds. As always, LOL Trump. Dude is just aces.
they're quite tanky tbh
09-19-2017 , 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.

...
When its not crime and not money whats left in why they cant come here...
09-19-2017 , 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
When someone hits their thumb with a hammer and says, "****!" ??

I don't believe you. I doubt you can produce one person who claims this even with the internet, but even if I'm way off there and it's .0001% of the population? Then it's because it's .0001% of the population.

If it's in the context of telling someone that you want to **** them, that's totally different and maybe, but for most people at least that's pretty personal and it really only matters if it offends that one person.

And it really does matter whether it's really a significant number of people or not.
There's a notion that the default setting of sex is a violent struggle, either emotionally or literally, with delineated winners and losers and this is reflected in how 'f**k' is commonly used, as in 'getting f**ked' and other variations.

But that's just a guess as to what Sklansky The Elder might be referring to. It has little to do objectification and misogyny, rather it has do with the notion that at our core we're just simple and crude animals, and we all subconsciously know it, and few of us are even smart enough to fake otherwise though most of us want to. Thus, that particular etymological line of 'f**k' is not a coincidence. Nobody has ever said they 'got f**cked' or 'f**ked somebody over and were thinking about something sweet and sensual, and the biological imperative to spread your DNA could be described as, to quote myself from like 5 sentences ago, a 'violent struggle, either emotionally or literally, with delineated winners and losers...'

As a much younger man I used to 'f**k with' people when they talking about 'having crushes' or 'like-liking somebody' by saying, 'Oh, you mean 'f**king' right? Cuz that's the only thing separating wanting to be good friends with a person and the cutesy phrase you're using, and the cutesy phrase seems to have so much more mass and gravity. So, if we're talking about 'f**king' let's actually talk about 'f**king'.' It's like we all have this ladies' and gentlemen's agreement to pretend we're not animals but we just can't help ourselves.

I haven't thought about all this in years. It felt like I was on the cusp of something profound but I was probably just being a f**king *******.



edit: f**k, Sklansky The Elder's pony just f**ked my pony, f**ked my pony right in the f**king ass

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Neither example is what I was thinking of. I am talking about saying in perhaps an office setting that our competitor is trying to f us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
I can see how that could be offensive. But, two things: like most things this is on a spectrum, and I still don't think many women find that offensive to women in particular, ie degrading or something as opposed to just being "bad language".
Aye, women also know it's 'bad language' as it's language that stares right into the abyss.



p.s.
Spoiler:




p.p.s. Steve Albini is a 2p2 poster.

Last edited by 6ix; 09-19-2017 at 02:35 AM.
09-19-2017 , 02:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
When its not crime and not money whats left in why they cant come here...
fear that the 50-75k additional refugees obama would have let in will *somehow* overthrow the united states government and impose shariah law on small town christians
09-19-2017 , 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy
The future of the police state:

* machine learning algorithms to identify enemies of the state. Automation means you get the benefits of complete surveillance without having to employ a giant workforce.
* automated opaque punishments. When rewarding friends and punishing enemies there is value in making it all invisible.
* instant access to all internet connected devices
* history of all connected devices

I think the algorithms eventually win and you get a government that can't be overthrown.


Man, lurking and posting here for so long and seeing a guy like Chips posting this is just terrifying ainec.

Prolly not that far off anywhere obv.
09-19-2017 , 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
fear that the 50-75k additional refugees obama would have let in will *somehow* overthrow the united states government and impose shariah law on small town christians
You would not think they would fear them too much since they have a lot in common with conservative Muslims. Some on both sides see the man as the head of the house, dont like homosexuals, atheists or single women who have sex. You would think there would be more understanding with their shared values.
09-19-2017 , 02:59 AM
Dark complexions and funny attire, tho.
09-19-2017 , 03:07 AM
Wrong version of God or not wanting America to be more brown then white seems all that is left if you are against refugees. Neither are a good look.
09-19-2017 , 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmgGlutten!
So the only hope that the travel ban continues to be blocked is that Trump keeps implying it is a Muslim ban right?
with gorsuch on the supreme court, the travel ban will go through no matter what.
09-19-2017 , 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.

...

An internal email, dated Sept. 5 and sent among officials from government agencies involved in refugee issues, said that “senior leadership is questioning the assumptions used to produce the report.” A separate email said that Mr. Miller had requested a meeting to discuss the report. The Times was shown the emails on condition that the sender not be identified. Mr. Miller personally intervened in the discussions on the refugee cap to ensure that only the costs — not any fiscal benefit — of the program were considered, according to two people familiar with the talks.
haha, mr miller be like ya, but how much did you lose?
09-19-2017 , 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHip41
No it doesn't make sense. Trump just made **** up and he was wrong. It was a lie.

Stop trying to normalize this ****.
Yeah a lot of teacher's pets that aren't even Trumpkins are trying to show off for the class for drawing a line between a story they vaguely remember and this Manafort story.

But like, does everyone remember the immediate followup to the Trump tweet? A bunch of people asking Trump what the **** he was talking about, and him trailing off and dropping it?

If he was aware of the Manafort tap, and was talking about the Manafort tap, wouldn't he have just said so back then?
09-19-2017 , 10:06 AM
Jesus, he's campaigning to the UN
09-19-2017 , 10:08 AM
Jfc, he is so bad at reading. He can't take his eyes off the prompter for one second
09-19-2017 , 10:24 AM
The applause is underwhelming.
09-19-2017 , 10:25 AM
09-19-2017 , 10:26 AM
This is so surreal. Like you get the feeling that everybody watching is very confused as to how seriously to take his words and threats.
09-19-2017 , 10:27 AM
Does he not understand the Iran nuclear agreement prevents them from getting nuclear bombs?

      
m