Iconochasm
All post-temple whore technology is gay.
No bio...
User ID: 314
Iām still trying to figure out how this is their fault, given the Republican trifecta;
Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof trifecta, and Dems used that to block DHS funding, while demanding completely insane poison pills to functionally stop immigration enforcement and open ICE agents to more leftist terror attacks. Your flight was delayed to fight for this for the whole country.
We're not an antifa group, that's just an idea. We're a book and movie club. We all met at Agatha's house where we watched One Battle After Another and then debated it over vegan snacks. That's why all of our phones were in one place and turned off for the duration.
Kevin McCallister could handle these arrangements. I believe in our leftist terrorists, that they too can aspire to the level of planning and agency displayed by a fictional 8 year old from 1990.
Yeah, the unstated premise there was "assuming you don't get caught". If you get busted in flagrante delicto then I can see how that would make things worse. But if you even hoped to get away with it, not having the tracking device in your pocket with a time-stamped trail is a good idea.
Zoomer criminals just leave the damn phone at home challenge [IMPOSSIBLE!!!].
I made the same conclusion, and based it off a series of article from 15 years ago, written by his professors, ostensibly as a tribute.
Do you know how he got that job? According to the guy who recruited him (note the recruited), the process began at a meeting where someone said "Hey, we're a law school in Chicago, a super black city, and we have basically no black faculty. Maybe we should do something about that?" And someone else said "I hear the kid running the Harvard Law review this year is black." "Great, go hire him."
I had heard for years that he was the only editor of the HLR to never write an article. One of his own spokesmen confirmed that, as referenced in this bizarre time-traveling Politico article that claims to have found a "lost" Obama article, without ever getting around to mentioning how it was found.
Anyway, Chicago hired him without actually having a real spot, so they paid him for a few years to take a sabbatical (before ever actually doing any law professor work) so he could write a book on constitutional law. At the end of that time period, what he purportedly handed in was his autobiography, Dreams from my Father. And UChicago just... took that.
That was a recurring theme in those retrospectives written when he was still new and fresh. The man never found a room he couldn't walk into and instantly have every irresponsible white progressive go "Wow, he's so handsome and articulate and black! That guy's getting an A!"
And the kicker is, I think Obama is actually a smart guy. The few ideas he bothered to have were actually pretty good. But the way his professors and mentors talked about him, no one ever felt the need to push or challenge him. Even just make him do the standard work. He's kind of the epitome of what Vivek crashed out about the Christmas before last, the Zack from Saved by the Bell guy who skated through on raw charisma, and could have probably benefited from some more serious study time. Maybe then he wouldn't have had to resort to regurgitating bong-circle Marxism on the rare occasions where he was pressed for a real answer.
Give a fig leaf so a sympathetic juror can do some jury nullification?
What supplement brands (vitamins, minerals, creatine, pre-workout, etc) do you trust and use? How did you make that determination?
because what other sources are there at the moment, really?
None. Even "independent" news are required to toe the Iranian party line as a condition on being allowed into the country.
Hang it in the Louve next to the "pretending not to understand things" tweet.
But do tell me: in what sense are Americans not (or ever) "civilized"? Non-rhetorically. Step up. What do those words mean?
I actually found myself nodding along with him. America has never been fully settled, such that it's occupants are forced to turn viciously on each other in red status games. Americans have always had PVE as an outlet, as a way to foster trust and self-regulation and prosocial behavior. We're built for PVE, and we're so good at it and it's so rewarding that when we try our hand at guild war PVP, we roflstomp.
Compare that to a "late stage" civilization like China or India or Persia where the only way to get ahead is to screw over someone else. There's only so many spots in the civil service, so every Chinese kid who makes the cut necessarily means another doesn't. This creates an environment where being good or competent in an objective sense is less important than outperforming peers. To them, we look like little kids who haven't internalized tiger mom knife-fighting.
To us, they look like savages stabbing themselves for pitiful loot because they don't grok "trust".
Or at least, that's the rough sketch of an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a few weeks.
"And have you stopped lynching the black people?" the genocidal tyrant asked smugly, as he washed in his daily bloodbath squeezed from more victims than the entire history of the KKK.
And the current paradigm is that if your goal is something other than "killing enemies" then you should use a different tool than the "enemy killing organization". Using the Enemy Killing Organization for non-Enemy Killing purposes is often ineffective and inefficient, and degrades the ability of the Enemy Killing Organization to kill enemies.
I'm confused. How many people in the US would be actually surprised/outraged if we got into a hot war and someone bombed a military base, which also had a school on it?
Plenty of people. It's just that there's very little overlap with the set of people who are upset about the bombing of this school.
Because your take is pure Arguments as Soldiers. When I saw the NYT article on the topic, clawing at implication and carefully phrased vagaries to push a narrative as hard as they could with extremely limited facts and knowledge, it just made me recall the old line "They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side." Remember, the only source we even have for the casualty count is the Iranian government. How much do you trust them? The US has hit Iran with thousands of bombs and the general level of precision is terrifying sci-fi absurdity. There's Iranian doctors purportedly reporting that literally every single casualty they've seen is non-civilian. Meanwhile, Iran responded by flinging missiles willy-nilly all over the region, including a bunch of civilian targets that no one cares about because it's just brown people failing at killing brown people.
Focusing all your attention on the single incident that might possibly have been the US hitting a civilian target is so obviously bad faith that it requires years of brainwashing and hyper-selective framing to take your performative outrage seriously.
"The US fired 3000 bombs and only a single one was possibly a misidentified target or misfired. That means the US has less shit happen during war than any other army in the combined history of humanity. Maybe that should make them much more comfortable going to war than any other polity that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
Christ.
Depends on when and how. If you join a club, guys do it into their 80's. If you're trying to hunt on your own, well, how much awkward, ungainly carcass can you personally haul through a mile of woods?
Random tangent: I remember when I was a kid at the hunting club, hearing a pair of adults talk about a third guy who couldn't make Deer Week that season for some reason. And one of the guys says "Damn, you only get 60 or 70 deer seasons in a lifetime."
Just one of those lines that's always stuck with me. There are only so many opportunities.
Do you know what time it is?
That's fine and fair. I more think this is a ripe scenario for thought experiments and teasing the outlines of things, than I am, say, calling for twitter posters to be jailed.
Imagine you were a juror in a case involving this sort of thing. What kind of evidence would you want to see to conclude that a person was an actively bad actor trying to sabotage their own nation? Or do you think idiocy is a fully general defense?
That's the blurry edge. What's the difference between a gullible idiot and someone just explicitly rooting for the other side?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
If the claims are literally true, then there would be reasonable value in propagating them beyond being a partisan for the other side. If the claims are not true, and you reasonable ought to have known that (as in, you had to have an AI generate the footage you're purporting to supply as "news" because it just doesn't exist), then your actions are a much cleaner, likely entirely indefensible, fit for "giving them Aid and Comfort".
What about lying about the state of the war to help Iranian propaganda efforts? Say, creating AI videos that purport to show Iran winning military victories against the US and presenting them as real news?
Treason would be literally aiding and abetting the enemy, which despite many people's attempts to claim it is so during every conflict, does not include "Speaking out against the war."
Eh, there's a point where colloquial usage is fair. I would say that if an opposition Senator gave information to the Iranian regime, that ought to count enough for "slander" purposes, even without a formal declaration.
But Trump has a short attention span and no conviction.
Trump has been talking about fucking up Iran since the 80s.
Worth noting that teenagers are a notoriously low propensity voting block. So even if a large chunk of 19 year olds are groypers... how many of them were going to make it to the polls anyway? It's not a Trump vote switching to the Dems, it's a guy playing video games on gummies staying the same.
She was an excellent SoS - she used the position to funnel so much money and influence into the Clinton Foundation. That's what secretary level positions are for, right?
Immigration restriction, sure (although he still refuses to do the one thing that would actually work, which is go after employers who hire illegals).
This gets cited constantly, and it always strikes me as "Please don't throw me into that briar patch" situation. "Oh Mr. Trump, please don't score a massive own goal and shoot yourself in the foot by aggressively disrupting multiple industries that will have clearly seen and felt impacts on regular Americans, I say, I say, please don't do that for sure!"
As an immigration hawk, I'm actually pretty fine with the current strategy of "deport a ton of people (headlining bad optics criminals) while closing the border and squeezing even more out, in a way that gradually and inexorably shrinks the illegal labor base while giving the relevant industries plenty of advance warning that things are changing". That actually seems a lot more sensible and less disruptive, and less likely to allow Certain People to spend the mid-term campaigns screaming at the top of their lungs that some random fruit is experiencing shortages.

Supposedly his dad was adamantly against him taking over, possibly for being gay, possibly for being an idiot.
Maybe the coma is a feature not a bug - he makes a decent figurehead, while being too incapacitated to attempt to actually rule, while also being totally expendable. Same logic as electing Biden, and it fits with the "mosaic" approach.
More options
Context Copy link