goDel

Terminator Genisys : ./10 After 15 mins I was more interested in the redlettermedia review than the movie itself, so I decided to watch that instead. I liked the review. Seemed spot on. Well done RLM!

that or the afx orphans arriving at peoples doorsteps

I think he probably would, actually. He's an evangelical, so suffering is probably reasoned away as being Gods will. And God is always right (and some kind of dominatrix, apparently)

Grandpa tells story about his penis and the one legged girl on the right has a huge boner. Cool story bro!

And he's got a point. Can't download the track. *waves fists @ Bambi *

i like this *forward tweets* #CAUGHTBYWATMM

So, that was almost page talking about some random bimbo's iphones without changing sagging the subject. Totally un-wattmm!? What!? *goes off on objectifying watmm and making ageists remarks*

I love statements like these, where people from the administration try to make clear to their governmental counterparts that if they want to block international agreements, they should be aware of their position/influence on the rest of the world. I really hope their political counterparts are just playing the political game (read: they're saying "yeah, you'll get what you want, but it'll cost you imaginary political money! i want something for my constituents in return for my support.") and don't believe they actually have answers to any problem that's outside of us-borders. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html

you mean his music!

ftr the record this is not my sister she is some dumb idiot friend of my cousin who had messy boobs and was way too old to be drinking like she did - hence my face. if i posted a pic of my sister this forum would explode hahaha excellent setup for yourself! nice sloppy apples phone though. XD

was expecting some limbs flying through the picture. but i guess this can be called plowing too. like a civilised kind of plowing. the no injuries kind.

*drops mic*

it's them apples, roight? if that's lopez' sis, the force must be strong in that family.

mmmmm...no lopez in the entire picture. the lady has a nice phone though.

Nah, would be more of an analogue bubblebath thing, or caustic window ...imooooo

"control of the USA, and by extension the world" LOL Is this the classic American Exceptionalism? Or rather American Narcissism? The rest of the world can function perfectly well without the US, thankyouverymuch. ;D

I'm curious on who you think will win the gop-ticket. Any ideas? I'm silently hoping for a Trump ticket. The US might be ready for an a-political (a**hole) president who doesn't care about party lines. As for Rubio, he still got this boyish look on his face. I do think he might be a worthy candidate in the distant future. (Rubio 2024!) But before? No. Every time he was given time to say something, he made his (studied) remarks followed by a look like he was looking for his mothers approval. "Did I do good?" Might be me though. He just comes across that way. With his big youthful eyes which signal everything is a questionmark needing some affirmation from some outside authority. He'll be ready to run for president when he has finally found his internal compass. I don't believe Paul will win either. The discussion with Christie was telling stories. Although Paul has a strong intrinsic ideology, for instance when it comes to privacy issues, the discussion with Christie signalled to me he is insensitive to other ideologies/views. Even if you disagree with Christie, you could see where he's coming from. Paul however didn't seem to care at all. He seems to operate on a program which says ideology is more important than the real world. Which to me is not a realistic program to run on. The real world doesn't work in an ideological way. To me, Paul can only win if his ideology just happens to perfectly match everybody elses. Which - in the real world - will never happen. Walker? I don't believe anything he says. His first question was about the poor economical performance in his state, which he answered as if his policies were the best thing ever and the economic performance was as good as could be. Completely ridiculous, imo. To me, that says he's full of bullshit. And doesn't mind selling bullshit while being on a stage, on national television. Ironically, Trump sold himself as a truth-teller. Right from the start when he raised his hand on not wanting to pledge for not running as an independent. The only actual lies I think I could pinpoint, were his remarks on pro-life. He tried to sell himself as a pro-life candidate. And I think he needs to, because otherwise the Republicans really don't know why Trump is a republican. I don't think he actually gives a shit on these pro-life issues. He's a business man. Spending time on issues like these don't create economical value. Who cares? At least, that's my read.

Used to think Trump was a "shill for the GOP". The joke made in one of those White House Correspondents diners "I thought Trump was running as a joke" perfectly summed up how I used to think. This year however, he seems pretty focussed on actually running. At least, in my eyes. The GOP probably still think he's a useful joke which attracts lots of attention. But he's getting a lot of airtime this time. Much more than he used to, I believe. And he's hurting the "serious" contestants in the polls. If this is GOP strategy, which I seriously doubt, I don't think it's a smart strategy. Putting Trump next to Jeb Bush on a stage, makes Jeb seem like an uninteresting wallflower. There aren't many candidates which can hold a candle to Trumps charisma. Christie, Paul, Kasich. But the rest pales, imo. I do think Carson is used as the "black token" by the GOP, btw. I had really no idea what he was doing on that stage. With Trump I get the feeling that although he lacks serious political skills/experience, he does know how to negotiate. Carson however... nothing. He's got nothing to offer, except being different than the rest. O, and in the odd chance that Trump actually does win the ticket, I'm sure he's able to convince people he's able to compensate his lack in political skills with attracting good people supporting him in the White House. And because he's as a-political as one can get (he doens't care about party lines), I'm assuming he wouldn't care whether people are republican or democrats or independents. Which might actually a good thing, imo. He'll just be running a business. In the most amoral way possible. If Obama won because he was the complete opposite to Bush, Trump might win this time, being a complete opposite to Obama (without being a Bush!). While Obama wanted to build bridges based on some moral fundament, Trump just wants to run a business. And the only moral Trump knows, is that whatever is good for business is good. I don't think Clinton will win the 2016 election, btw. And I don't see any other Democrat beating Clinton. Clinton is the new Al Gore. Whenever she opens her mouth on a stage, people either phase out or get annoyed regardless of content. I don't think she can convince people on an emotional level. Intellectually perhaps, but presidents don't win because of their intellect.

Euh...you should have already been sure you can't take the media seriously? What!? If you're using your bullshit detector on the media, it should have been overloaded a long time ago. How? Why? Whatevs

Time for a WATMM meetup in North Korea! =D

What do you mean "will we end up"? I thought the US reached that point many moons ago. And why the obsession with end games? Is that a US thing? Having a never ending end game?

yes! moar! he's got a lot of uploading to do real soon. kinda like a job. silly rdj. :)

ooh nice! Thanks for reminding me I forgot to buy the version with the vocals (love & happiness). I had the instrumental version, but it's way more fun with vocals. ;D Off to the beatport...

how about the CRA? it pushed those banks to make a lot of those loans to people who they knew could never pay them back? it wasn't a form of regulation itself? the idea that the problem was caused by rampant free market capitalism is ridiculous. banks were given incentives through the CRA to give risky loans. then you also have the fed, manipulating interest rates drastically, causing all kinds of chaos. then fannie+freddie step in, buy those loans, and they're backed by the gov and therefore supported by tax dollars. at one point they announced their low income loan commitments at $5trillion. the whole thing was a racket. the banks got their bonuses out of it but the gov was orchestrating the whole thing. 'too big to fail' and bailouts also came from the gov. that's hardly a free market with a lack of regulation. one point about the "gov orchestrating the whole thing" is to be really careful when you say such a thing. first, whose policies were those? especially in the us there's a huge grey area between "the market" (or rather wall street) and "government". i haven't looked who wrote the policies you're pointing at, but i'm pretty sure the people from wal street were deeply involved in writing those policies and making sure the politicians "responsible" voted accordingly. if your view of us politics is that whenever government makes laws there is regulation, think again. not sure why i should explain this, but you know, obviously it's pretty difficult to remain rational in the us bubble. second: even if those incentives were put there against the will of "wall street", there was supposed to be a safety net. and "wall street" was supposed to be incentivised in and of itself to create their safety net. because wall street should be able to recognise the financial risks and act accordingly. on the freddie/fannie thing: you might want to explain that why housing prices were rising in pretty much the entire western world. was that us policy? did all governments just happen to make stupid policies at the same time? wouldn't that be a happy coincidence? or was there more perhaps? in this global financial market which was acting pretty much outside of the scopes of those local governments. all i know is that whenever i hear someone blaming governments, i can be safe to stop listening and go back to sleep, because governments are only half the story. at most.

housing bubbles caused by government intervention. sure, i wish it was that simple. the gfc started as a credit problem. people/businesses were borrowing way more than they could repay. whether it's about houses or anything else. that was the bubble that burst. were houses involved? sure. government? probably. did the government create a bubble by meddling with the markets? obviously, there isn't a single cause, but the opposite would be more likely. due to a lack of regulation, the bubble grew way too big. (and yes, like mistere says, there were also policies incentivising banks to give more loans) long story short, just watch this video (30mins) of economy 101: