Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 82: Gotta Nuke Somethin

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/850014912642523137
---

psaltery posted...

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/850014912642523137

If he does this can everyone shut the fuck up about Russia already?
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/mcconnell-nuclear-option-helps-senate-mccain-whoever-says-that-is-a-stupid-idiot/2017/04/05/d9d73aec-1a1a-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.8c4e0938d053

Senator John McJericho?
---

Yet McCain will vote for it I'm sure.

What a confusing man.
---

"John McCain and Lindsey Graham: US should lead international coalition against Assad"

"Trump is relying on Mattis' judgment, according to the source."

"The sources stressed a decision has not been made."

What about fighting ISIS, now we're going to fight Assad too? :)
---

psaltery posted...

"John McCain and Lindsey Graham: US should lead international coalition against Assad"

"Trump is relying on Mattis' judgment, according to the source."

"The sources stressed a decision has not been made."

What about fighting ISIS, now we're going to fight Assad too? :)

We can take them both on
---

Nuclear option is affirmed HAHAHAHAHAHA

Congratulations to Justice Gorsuch!

Congratulations to the Conservative Movement, alive and well for a new generation!
---

@UltimaterializerX

Please teach me how to fly all these W's! I'm not used to it!
---

It was bound to happen, either for this nominee or the next.

Of course they claim it won't be used for legislative votes but don't be surprised when it suddenly is used for that too.
---

On_The_Pence posted...

psaltery posted...

"John McCain and Lindsey Graham: US should lead international coalition against Assad"

"Trump is relying on Mattis' judgment, according to the source."

"The sources stressed a decision has not been made."

What about fighting ISIS, now we're going to fight Assad too? :)

We can take them both on

Do you really honestly think that or is this just bluster?
---

Also isn't "Conservative Movement" an oxymoron? Isn't the point of conservatism to not change?
---

I mean it took several weeks into his presidency but Trump finally got something he wanted.

Took massive rule changes to get it, but good for him.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also isn't "Conservative Movement" an oxymoron? Isn't the point of conservatism to not change?

But but muh winning, blatant power grabs, and fucking over normal people for the sake of corporate money

Jakyl25 posted...

Also isn't "Conservative Movement" an oxymoron? Isn't the point of conservatism to not change?

That can't be right, can it?

After all, they just changed something to stop themselves from changing things.
---

On_The_Pence posted...

@UltimaterializerX

Please teach me how to fly all these W's! I'm not used to it!

“Idiot, whoever says that is a stupid idiot, who has not been here and seen what I’ve been through and how we were able to avoid that on several occasions,”

“And they are stupid and they’ve deceived their voters because they are so stupid.”

lol.
---

What I honestly don't get is why they didn't give Merrick Garland a hearing when they had the votes to block him anyway? They could have proceduraly eliminated his nomination instead of kicking up this dust-storm that led to Democrats being so fighting mad about this.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

What I honestly don't get is why they didn't give Merrick Garland a hearing when they had the votes to block him anyway? They could have proceduraly eliminated his nomination instead of kicking up this dust-storm that led to Democrats being so fighting mad about this.

Temper Tantrum.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

What I honestly don't get is why they didn't give Merrick Garland a hearing when they had the votes to block him anyway? They could have proceduraly eliminated his nomination instead of kicking up this dust-storm that led to Democrats being so fighting mad about this.

they wanted to hold more Ws
---

Is Gorsuch really that conservative anyway? He seems relatively moderate, certainly compared to Scalia.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

What I honestly don't get is why they didn't give Merrick Garland a hearing when they had the votes to block him anyway? They could have proceduraly eliminated his nomination instead of kicking up this dust-storm that led to Democrats being so fighting mad about this.

Because Republicans are cowards who would, if a vote was called, have to go on record in an election year and either appoint an Obama judge, or vote against a pure moderate that THEY supported. The way they did it, only Bitch McConnell gets blood on his hands. Republicans are the party of pussies and cowards, nothing new.
---

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

moar headlines like this plz
---

He doesn't seem very conservative to me. Could be another David Souter or Anthony Kennedy.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Is Gorsuch really that conservative anyway? He seems relatively moderate, certainly compared to Scalia.

538 has a good analysis of him. He's to the right of scalia and every other recent Justice besides Thomas
---

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-trump/
---

SmartMuffin posted...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

moar headlines like this plz

“Cuck,” a portmanteau of “cuckold” and “conservative,”

what?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

moar headlines like this plz

lmao what is this world right now




Also I'd literally give up a testicle to cuck Kushner tbh
---

psaltery posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

moar headlines like this plz

“Cuck,” a portmanteau of “cuckold” and “conservative,”

what?

uh, that's what it has always been, dating back to well before the mainstream media had ever heard of it
---

SmartMuffin posted...

psaltery posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

moar headlines like this plz

“Cuck,” a portmanteau of “cuckold” and “conservative,”

what?

uh, that's what it has always been, dating back to well before the mainstream media had ever heard of it

No it was just short for cuckold.
---

Yeah, cuckservative is a portmanteau of cuckold and conservative.

Cuck is just short for cuckold.
---

No it wasn't. That's what a lot of dumb MSM people assumed because they weren't actually paying attention. Cuck, as a term in the alt-right, was always meant to describe "cuckold conservatives" specifically.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

psaltery posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

moar headlines like this plz

“Cuck,” a portmanteau of “cuckold” and “conservative,”

what?

uh, that's what it has always been, dating back to well before the mainstream media had ever heard of it

Uh, no. That would be "cuckservative."
---

Yeah Dems, besides the whole "stealing a seat" thing, didn't care for his record favoring corporations over worker's rights and not too great on women's rights, either.
---

Cuck(servative) is also a synonym for "race traitor". Thanks Wikipedia.
---

psaltery posted...

Cuck(servative) is also a synonym for "race traitor". Thanks Wikipedia.

I don't understand the idea of race traitor. one doesn't owe one's race anything just because one is a part of said race. *shrugs*
---

Guys the article literally says "cuckservative is a portmanteau of cuckhold and conservative".

I don't know why psaltry edited it down to just say cuck.
---

The article did initially just say "cuck"
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Guys the article literally says "cuckservative is a portmanteau of cuckhold and conservative".

I don't know why psaltry edited it down to just say cuck.

you mean they corrected their article.
---

Here are some of the design proposal's for Trump's wall.

“As Pretty as the Parthenon”


Doubling as Nuclear Waste Facility


At an Angle


Design Beyond Reach


Memorial Wall


Hadrian’s Wall


One-Way Visibility


Perch


Camouflage


Sensors


Technology First


Fitting In


Mesh Fencing


A Twist on Steel


http://www.wsj.com/graphics/trump-mexico-wall-bid-examples/
---

Out of these, my favorites are One-Way Visibility, Camouflage, and Fitting In.
---

One-Way Visibility is the tackiest shit I've ever seen.

Which knowing what Trump's apartment looks like, means he'll probably choose it.
---

FigureOfSpeech posted...

I used the term retrospectively for the purpose of convenience and that was only after sep started talking shit. if he hadn't blubbered and bawled at my initial post in which the word creationist was not used, the word never would have entered the conversation... not by me at least. I don't think he was trolling me or anything, but if he was, it would have been masterful in what followed.

It isn't specifically about how widely or narrowly you define the people you attacked. It was the fact that Peaf said referring to the potential number of people who would listen to the pro trump spin in spite of how flawed it was.

The question isn't "what", it's "how many" and the referenced noun needs to be made plural.

And your response was an unprompted attack on religion. And with the exception of Young Earth, most of it was stuff that any reasonable Christian would agree with. And your attack was with such vehemence that it carried the tone of "these people are fucking worthless".

"How can people possible believe that God created 2 people in his own image?! LUL" (paraphrased) is a rude thign to say, and it's a belief held by virtually all Christians. Not just the ones that subscribe to Young Earth.


So yeah, it was the overall aggressiveness combined with the unprompted timing. Why single out Christianity in that moment that was about die hard trump supporters? It doesn't have to matter anymore and we're on to more relevant topics, which is fine. But I'm not sure how you wouldn't expect a negative reaction from that.
---

I just gave people here too much credit I guess. *shrugs*
---

FigureOfSpeech posted...

I just gave people here too much credit I guess. *shrugs*

OR, and I'm just spit balling here, you said something aggressive and rude with poor timing and you got called out for it.

Why is it on us for being offended by something offensive? Even if we don't specifically believe in everything you mentioned.



HashtagSEP posted...

So let's take it to mean "Genesis is literal, every word."

Does that somehow make it better to just aggressively attack these people?

How is that any better than somebody attacking somebody for being Muslim, or being gay?

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

FigureOfSpeech posted...

I just gave people here too much credit I guess. *shrugs*

OR, and I'm just spit balling here, you said something aggressive and rude with poor timing and you got called out for it.

Why is it on us for being offended by something offensive? Even if we don't specifically believe in everything you mentioned.



HashtagSEP posted...

So let's take it to mean "Genesis is literal, every word."

Does that somehow make it better to just aggressively attack these people?

How is that any better than somebody attacking somebody for being Muslim, or being gay?

I don't see any aggression in it and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it was rude. I don't know why you're taking it as denial of rudeness. as for offensiveness... there are people who subscribe to that ideology of taking all scripture literally and I'm assume the young earth thing you described (had I heard this term before, it would have been more appropriate to use than creationism, but I had not heard it before). I can't help but feel offended by the existence of such people, so if I offend them, that's fine by me. fair play as far as I'm concerned. anyone else who was offended, well, shit happens.

I wasn't going to dignify that sep post with a response, but could you explain the thought process by which a person would be compelled to equate taking the genesis story literally and as fact... with being gay?
---

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/75205812
---

FigureOfSpeech posted...

I can't help but feel offended by the existence of such people

That sounds like a personal problem.

I'm sure there are shitty people in that group, who do and say shitty things, and you can definitely be offended by them when they are being offensive. As someone who is religious I am acutely aware that there are other religious people who present the ideology very poorly, and who are very terrible examples of Christ to the world. And it saddens me when that happens, but there are going to be terrible people in every grouping of people.

But the ones who hold that belief and keep to themselves about it? You are offended by the EXISTENCE of those people? That's pretty extreme.


FigureOfSpeech posted...

but could you explain the thought process by which a person would be compelled to equate taking the genesis story literally and as fact... with being gay?

It's not equating the two things, merely equating the blind disdain towards groups of people.

You indicated blind disdain and disregard towards PeopleGroupA.
Often in the past the gay community has received similar treatment.

And you don't have to be gay yourself to be offended on their behalf. It's the derision towards the group that is being equated, not the particulars of the group itself.

I hope that cleared it up.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

FigureOfSpeech posted...

I can't help but feel offended by the existence of such people

That sounds like a personal problem.

I'm sure there are shitty people in that group, who do and say shitty things, and you can definitely be offended by them when they are being offensive. As someone who is religious I am acutely aware that there are other religious people who present the ideology very poorly, and who are very terrible examples of Christ to the world. And it saddens me when that happens, but there are going to be terrible people in every grouping of people.

But the ones who hold that belief and keep to themselves about it? You are offended by the EXISTENCE of those people? That's pretty extreme.


FigureOfSpeech posted...

but could you explain the thought process by which a person would be compelled to equate taking the genesis story literally and as fact... with being gay?

It's not equating the two things, merely equating the blind disdain towards groups of people.

You indicated blind disdain and disregard towards PeopleGroupA.
Often in the past the gay community has received similar treatment.

And you don't have to be gay yourself to be offended on their behalf. It's the derision towards the group that is being equated, not the particulars of the group itself.

I hope that cleared it up.

you are completely correct about it being a personal problem, yes. I wouldn't say so much that I'm offended by the types of people who would keep it to themselves, but the mere fact that they would hold such beliefs which are contradictory to reality is disappointing to the least, though I acknowledge that if they were raised in ignorance, they shouldn't be expected to know any better, but that in and of itself doesn't bring me any solace.

my disdain is far from blind. you did clear it up, but it seems like sep was so drastically oversimplifying it that I couldn't see his angle at all. I was trying to figure out how gay people could have been roped in with the other groups without having any reason to be.
---

also, I appreciate that you decided to talk it over rather than being a sep about it.
---

FigureOfSpeech posted...

also, I appreciate that you decided to talk it over rather than being a sep about it.

You literally called me a c*** in one of your earlier posts. Why would I try to be reasonable with you after when you clearly weren't going to be reasonable with me?

Nice to see you're still upset over it, though.
---

This discussion is still happening.
---