Jump to content

MisterE

Members
  • Posts

    2,556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MisterE

  1. why i just feel like this thread (nay- the world) isn't ready for your meme stylings yet. give it another 50-100 pages and you'll be hailed as the great prophet who foretold and ushered in a new era of meme madness. and by madness i mean insanity

  2. WATMM doesnt have green text friend, try it out at one of your local chans.

    but isnt watmm maybe only 2 steps away from being a chan, this thread itself maybe only 1?

     

    and isn't the fact that a guy is in here, supposedly having a 'meltdown', expressed through memes- a meme-meltdown...

    isn't that a possible indicator that the obsession with memes is unhealthy? isn't it possible that whyless is the future of all meme-posters? communicating emotional breakdowns via meme? maybe why was an inevitable eventuality of this thread, and he just happened to be the first one to snap?

     

    you guys are playing with psychic cyberfire with these condensed ass, danky ass memes. you have no one to blame but yourselves, whatever happens.

  3. bit of a tangent away from that, but the situation with cops raiding homes is fucking ridiculous. i've seen articles where they raid a house at like 4am, a guy comes out of his bedroom with a sheathed knife and so they pop him in the head like hes some criminal scum, when they're the ones breaking and entering into his house. the whole reason they raided was because they found empty weed baggies in his trash. regardless of that, if the cops are going to go get someone from their house, they shouldn't be allowed to do it after a certain time in the evening, if they are going to barge in they should make sure someone in the house is aware they are coming in first, but really imo they should have to try to stake the place out and grab the person as they leave the house. maybe raids should only be reserved for cases where someone has got away from them already or they know that someone inside is in danger or whatever. anyway the laws governing how they do that shit need serious reform. maybe itd require a constitutional amendment saying that someone's house is a place where they can basically expect to be safe and chill, and not have cops bust in and shoot them.

  4. ha. a % of me has very strong suspicions about that being why trump is in there. he's very suspicious. considering just a few years ago he was kissing hill/bill's asses, calling them great friends, great people, great leaders, etc. i think as recently as 2013 unless i'm mistaken. then less than a year after a quote where he's praising hillary as sec of state, he's out there saying shes the worst one we've had in history. pretty drastic, and i never saw that he gave any explanation for why he flipped on her so radically. some people assume maybe the benghazi thing, but i'm pretty sure one of his quotes of praise was after that incident. i just think flipping like that on a character like her is just unnatural. especially when the guy is trying to sell himself as a conservative now, and hillary is seen as a gorgon to them.

  5. i dont think the RNC likes trump but they feel forced into 'being nice' (as trump says) to him, for fear that he'll run independent and tank their chances. it's almost like he's holding them hostage. as far as carson, if he's 'token' anything it's not for the GOP, it's for the voters, who it seems pretty clear to me are the only reason he got on that stage, because some of them like him. to get in that debate the candidates needed good polling numbers. imo it's a good thing that people still have some chance to get on a stage like that because of that kind of grass-roots support. so maybe he's the token black for the conservative voters, but it seems to me like they actually like what he has to say. i saw a few polls suggesting that his popularity may have went up some due to that debate, also. if the GOP/RNC were allowed to just step in and pick their guy (without having to worry about trump), it'd almost surely be bush, or maybe rubio.

  6. @chen

    from a wiki:

    In the United States after Reconstruction, the phrase "the Left" was used to describe those who supported trade unions, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.[18][19] More recently in the United States, left-wing and right-wing have ---> often <--- been used as synonyms for Democratic and Republican, or as synonyms for liberalism and conservatism respectively.[20][21][22][23]

     

    not that you didn't already know who i was talking about when i said 'left wing type voters'. everyone understands what is being said when the phrases 'left wing' or 'left of center' or 'right wing/right of center' or even 'center' itself (which you used, and which is a relative concept that couldn't exist without something to either side, making your post self-contradictory), when those phrases are used thousands of times per day, by politicians, pundits, and others in the media, and regular run of the mill people. those phrases turn up tens of millions of google hits. whether you want it to be a thing or not isn't really relevant to whether it is. and this is beside the fact that 'right wing' is thrown around here pretty frequently and you don't seem to have any problem with that.

     

    and yes i'm aware that a lot of "libruls" aren't happy with hillary. but largely it's because she's not far enough LEFT for them. hillary is out there now, trying to appear more liberal (notice the article calls sanders 'left-wing') to prevent sanders from wooing them. obviously kasich is putting himself out there as centrist, but so what? he'd have the same problem in the general election, with people further right not being too thrilled to come out and vote for him. and there's more i could say about that, but excuse me i have to go have sex with my sisters and drink some moonshine, then i gotta go load my trusty six shooter, my shotguns, go huntin fer varmints and lost city folk aka "libruls" to eat. right after i find my banjo. (as an aside- fuk u)

  7. i'm not totally sure how his polling is here in ohio (i've seen a few saying he'd lose to hillary), but i know that his touting of all the improvements he's made here, is going to fall on some pretty deaf ears. prob literally hundreds of towns/small cities here are basically wasting away into pill slums. my home town seems to have had a serial killer stalking prostitutes in the past year... there weren't pill addicted prostitutes in that town in the 90s. not saying that's his fault (it's been happening for maybe 10-15yrs or more), but he shouldn't be taking credit for fixing something that clearly isn't.

     

    another thing, when he throws out his 5.whatever % unemployment rate figure, that's the same exact dishonest figure Obama uses for the nation. if you just drop people off from being tallied in that figure after they aren't looking for work for like what it is now, 2 weeks? so now you don't call them "unemployed", that's basically just lying about the amount of unemployed people. it's just redefining the word unemployed so that you have a better number to report, and it's really just a flat out lie and should be shouted down as one by the media, if they were honest and doing their actual jobs. but people know it when they look around and it doesn't jive with what they see. so again, i think kasich's stats he throws out (which by the way, also mirror the same 'changes' that happened at the national level, after those stats/numbers were massaged properly, which means he can't attribute any of the supposed 'improvement' in ohio to himself necessarily, anyway) are also going to fall on deaf ears here. we, just like the rest of the country, actually have record low participation in the workforce (aka, to honest people, as 'unemployment'), at the lowest since 78. there's a reason carter didn't get re-elected and that was a big part of it.

     

     

    i'm sure plenty of left wing type voters and pundits would like to see a guy like kasich (or anyone else they know would lose to hillary) get the R nomination but unfortunately for them it's not their decision to make (unless they go out in droves and vote at the republican primary (which wouldn't surprise me)).

  8. yeah i thought that was pretty weird too... if i were forced to guess, it'd have to have something to do with fox and ideas on their part about which of the candidates should be emphasized. i get the impression that fox doesn't like trump, and they thought they'd grill him a bit. yeah they grilled all of them and i feel like that should be done more in these kinds of things. a lot more. they should be held accountable and have to explain things they've done in the past which don't jive with whatever they're saying now. but they seemed, imo, to be coming out with a sharper knives at trump. maybe they gave Kasich more time because of his brand of supposed 'compassionate conservatism' and they wanted that to counterbalance some of the expected shit-show with trump, re: illegals.


    i feel like they probably want a more 'centrist' guy like bush to get it (and have since the beginning, and are increasingly frustrated that he hasn't become 'inevitable' like hillary was or seemed to be for a while) and they tried to damage trump a bit by hitting him with some of the harder questions they hit anyone with. and anyone may disagree with that, but i'm sure i personally could find some things that the republican voters were upset with (or would be had they known), with each of those other candidates which could've easily been thrown in their faces but wasn't. just one example off the top of my head is the TPA flip flop from cruz, which anyone who's payed any attention at all would know was the thing that probably hurt cruz with his own supporters the most. why didn't they throw that in his face and ask him to explain that (i would've loved that)? why didn't they hit christie with the bridge scandal/incident? if we dug as far back into the past with the others as they did with trump i'm sure you could find plenty of things that could damage any of those guys if they didn't have a great answer ready.


    it seemed to me that fox went after trump in the debate, and it backfired and he ended up using it to get more time to make it about him, with the result of fox actually helping him out. i think even that retarded focus group thing they did at the end was possibly rigged to try to push their ideas about trump onto the viewers. or is it just some miraculous thing that they managed to, purely at random, find a room full of republican voters who all think trump is a terrible candidate, while his polls were showing a completely different story going into the debate, and he said nothing during it that should really change anyone's mind about him. he was himself. he did the same thing that got him up in those polls. imo there's a good chance fox rigged that focus group. and even since the debate you have some reports looking like that the debate didn't hurt trump (contrary to the overwhelming sentiment expressed by their focus group), or maybe even helped him, which should imo make republican voters suspicious of fox. fox's cred should be hurt with them after this debate. imo the whole idea of something like that focus group is like they're treating the people at home as imbeciles who need to see what other imbeciles think about what we all just heard, before or instead of actually applying their own brains to it and just thinking how they feel about what they heard. it looks like total blatant brainwash to me. and with regard to how slanted it was against trump (again, just talking about the focus group thing here), maybe they just randomly grabbed those people, but i have doubts is all i'm saying.

  9.  

     

    carson spent 80% of his talk relating politics to surgery since nobody could dispute a neurosurgeon

     

    actually he spent 0% of his time doing that. a quick look through the transcripts shows that he only mentions anything about surgery twice- once in the closing statement, and there he was joking and wasn't comparing politics to surgery, just noting things he had done, and one other time before that when he said:

     

    "...you know, I was asked by an NPR reporter once, why don’t I talk about race that often. I said it’s because I’m a neurosurgeon. And she thought that was a strange response. And you say — I said, you see, when I take someone to the operating room, I’m actually operating on the thing that makes them who they are. The skin doesn’t make them who they are."

     

    there he was just talking about race, and wasn't comparing the issue to surgery in a way that nobody without that background could dispute. it wasn't a metaphor or anything, just a simple statement relating to his experience and ideas about race. nowhere else did he mention surgery. i felt that they gave him probably among the least opportunities to talk out of all the candidates.

  10. People who should not have been receiving mortgages (NINJAs - No Income No Jobs or Assets) were getting mortgages because banks had a much higher appetite for risk, due to lack of oversight and regulation. This lack of regulation enabled predatory lending. So I suppose one could say this lack of policy encouraged such behaviour.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.