lol, one line out of that I'd forgotten about was when the chick goes "I think there's a revolution happening pretty soon?" when asked why Iran. There is if you guys have any say in it, I guess.

Lolollol (waiting on me sklansky to explain how that is really genius level geography)

Per Hanlon's Razor, I think the population at large did not know that (look how factually uninformed everyone is in the present day) but I will allow that part of the reason they didn't know (again, as in the present day) is that they sought out information which confirmed what they wanted to believe. In elite circles, yeah, everyone knew but didn't care.

I don't even remember what I thought about that at the time. I was certainly opposed to the war and went to the protest (we got about 7% of the population out in Adelaide, biggest protest of my lifetime) but I don't think I had any strong opinion that the WMD intel was bull****. Pretty sure I was agnostic on it, thought the intel was pretty weaksauce and that it didn't justify the war. I was 22-23 at the time the debate was happening, so probably insufficiently cynical.

Am I ponied and didn't notice or has nobody posted the LA Times interview with John Kelly?

Most interesting thing in it imo is that Kelly says that the family separation thing was a decision by noted scumbag and gnome Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions which took the White House by surprise:

This is worth noting as well, this is the pull quote most outlets are going with:

Also, pretty sure the "senior White House official on background" is just John Kelly still.

Edit:

Also, phrasing dude, seriously.

CNN was ginning people up for the Iraq war before we even knew what happened. That was some surreal ****. Everyone was hung-ho ready to take down Saddam because he might have WMDs even though he had nothing to do with 9/11 and he’d been a contained threat for a decade. It’s like literally everyone I knew had lost their mind. And then we had the PATRIOT Act which was just such a cheap knockoff of 1984 it was embarrassing.

Basically it just takes one illegal immigrant committing a major terror attack and Trump will be president for life. This country really is that dumb.

...which is why every single day I ask myself if I should just start grifting these people.

Also, I just heard that apparently mass murders get all kinds of fan mail in jail. Specifically, Chris Watts who murdered his pregnant wife and two toddlers has college girls sending him naked pictures and adding money to his prison account.

Set up a Gofundme for the Gofundme for the wall.

"Donations have slowed down for the wall Gofundme. If you donate here, we can then turnaround and increase the funds over there. Two Gofundmes are better than one!"

Solid job by those girls' parents.

seems more like a solid job by Chris Watts, but I won’t argue with you...

In MIke Tyson's autobiography, he wrote that while he was in prison for raping Desiree Washington, he used to get lots of naked pictures from women in the mail. Naturally, Tyson did the honorable thing with such pictures: he sold them to other inmates for use to masturbate.

I’m assuming you misread that post wiper. Not really your style of humor there.

1. Start a 527 group with the acronym WALL. Welcome to America Legally Latinx. It's goal will be for immigration reform to expand legal immigration.

2. Start a GoFundMe for the WALL, and make it just confusing enough for Trumpers to fall for it (so like only mildly confusing).

3. Use most of the money to actually do what you set out to with WALL, and skim a little to pay yourself for the time and effort. Maybe $50/hr or something for your time.

Like what's the o/u on how much money you could grift for the greater good that way? Six figures? Seven?

Question or the lawyers, and your answer does not constitute legal advice yada yada yada... Breitbart embedded a tweet (and the picture I tweeted) of mine in an article about NFL attendance. They never asked, although I assume they don't have to since a tweet is already published publicly, etc... Legally can I force them to take it down or anything like that? I've seen cable news outlets ask for permission to use it, but I assume that's because it's being put on TV, not just used online.

And the only real reason I even care to get it taken down is because **** Breitbart, that's why.

If they've been foolish enough to embed it instead of screencapping it, changing your handle to "**** Breitbart" will probably get the job done, and hey, good for a laugh, too.

From my experience Trumpers screen cap everything. A handful of them that sort of know how to use computers will screen cap something so the rest can share it.

On the forum I post at with a lot of Trumpers you can embed twitter yet they legit never do it, it's always a screencap of a twitter post.

If he means this article, they all seem to be embedded.

( twitter | raw text )

That sounds a lot like abandoning the idea of an all concrete wall, but wtf do I know

( twitter | raw text )

He's just so needy.

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

I guess we will have to wait until see-through concrete becomes available.