Slashdot Mirror

Funny that you should bring up the Daily Show since they had anti vaxxer and profession Katherine Hepburn impersonator RFK jr on and from what I remember they didn't mock him. I think this is the video of that episode but it's been a long time since I've last seen it. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...

It's because the experts keep discrediting themselves. You might not think they are, but to an increasingly large number of people, science and government institutions are not trustworthy, for what they consider good reasons.

Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You can deluge anti-vaxxers with an exceptionally polite list of facts and research and it just makes them dig in even more. So what do you do with people that can't be reasoned with?

1) Mocking. The Daily Show had on the lunar conspiracy theorist who got decked by Buzz Aldrin, after he hounded the retired astronaut, accusing him of being a liar and a cheat. After playing the clip of the theorist getting punched, the "reporter" "pointed out" that it looked fake.

2) Give them so much shit in public, all the time every time, that they voluntarily stfu.

http://southpark.cc.com/full-e... for its funny episode. I like Jeff Bezos' scenes. ;)

Author of the "study" is Gernot Wagner, an economist and a co-director of Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program - with David W. Keith.

Dave-boy also likes spraying sulfuric acid in the air as a solution for global warming, while arguing that more windmills will cause "significant warming" (which IS bullshit BTW).
Dave also runs a business where his main preoccupation is coming up with clever ideas how to keep those N. Murray Edwards tar sands oil dollars coming in.

Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]

TLDR: It's a bullshit study, created for the benefit of dirtiest of oil industries, so they could have something to point at and claim that burning tar ain't really that bad, all things considering.

You could use the controls from the South Park "it" in the episode "the Entity"

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that this is a product of bias and mental issues by the authors.
Much like how the authors of SuperFreakonomics couldn't have resisted their "one clever trick to fix global warming" chapter thanks to their personal biases. Which came back to bite them.
Also, the claim made in the paper is clearly false, even fraudulent.
Whether due to bias or to drum up publicity, I don't know. But they actually show that they are wrong.
More on that below. First a word or two on authors.

David W.Keith is a pusher of solar and geoengineering as a solution for climate change.
Also, best way to solve that climate change, according to him, is to start spraying sulfuric acid into air.
And he owns and runs a geoengineering company.
Which kinda runs on tar sands money.

Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]

Lee Miller on the other hand really hates them windmills.
And both windmills and photovoltaics should be kept out of the cities, tucked away somewhere in the desert.

In fact, he's done resear... I mean he played with computer models to "prove" that installing windmills will basically... stop the wind. Well... slow it down.
Someone should have told him about all those sails we used to use globally, that we're no longer using.

I.e. That a reduction of things to preindustrial levels actually requires reduction of wind speeds as well.
Or remind him that the air moved by the wind is a fluid. Like water.
And just like how water in the sea doesn't stop moving because of all the boats blocking it from moving freely... neither will global air currents actually slow down.
And even if they do - we could just reduce the number of flags and start driving cars only downwind, while wearing more tight fitting clothes, right?
Or tell him about the chance that his model is NOT REALLY a completely accurate representation of reality.

As for the study... It claims the following:

generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 C.
...
The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.

It also claims that solar effect would be smaller but that's besides the point, unless you're looking for more bias fodder.

The issue is that those "approximately equivalent" and "large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity" are COMPLETELY ignoring that the US is a part of a global system.
As seen from the graph they've provided.

They claim a warming of 0.24C over Continental US from 0.5TWe produced with wind power, by 2080, at which point it would level out.
At the same time they claim a cooling of about -0.48C over Continental US from

Bernie's idiotic tax on hiring poor people

That's an impressively batshit crazy framing of the issue. Are you and your friends going to hold a tearful service, complete with burning candles below a picture of St. Rand....because....less of your tax money will be subsidizing a trillion dollar company??? Amazon paying $15 an hour means less people on food stamps and Medicaid, slick.

Poverty is strongly correlated with how much money your daddy had, same as it does for the rich

FTFY. People "choose" to be poor like you "chose" not to own your favorite sports team and be a tech billionaire before you turned 25.

An obvious way to help these people is to make it EASIER for employers to hire them and give them a chance to turn their lives around.

Companies will hire the minimum number of workers needed to produce the maximum results. How "easy" that is is as irrelevant to that equation as high corporate tax rates are.

But Bernie's poverty tax does the exact opposite. It penalizes companies for hiring the people most in need of a job.

Aside from the service, the tears and the candles, maybe you could start a GoFundMe for Bezos, because having a larger net worth than dozens of countries just isn't enough. Were you the inspiration for that South Park scene where we're all supposed to cry for the rich because they had to settle for a Gulfstream III instead of a Gulfstream IV for their private jet? Or maybe the fundraiser for Kylie Jenner, to hurry up and be the youngest billionaire before she turns 22.

It is a myth that "low pay" is a significant cause of poverty.

The fact that someone can work full time and be below the poverty line makes a bad liar out of you.

There is no plausible proposal for basic income that "closes the gap" and provides a living income to everyone. They only proposals that come close do so by eliminating social security, which is politically infeasible and deeply unfair to the people that paid into the system for a lifetime, and by raiding medicare, which ignores the fact that medical expenses are not evenly spread.

Mark Hamill called, and said every word in those sentences are false.

Markets don't work that way. Nobody would accept a job for a penny

Unpaid interns are fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I have no doubt Google adjust "trending" and "may interest" you to try to swing votes towards Democrats.

Do you have evidence of this?

This is what separates conservatives from liberals. Conservatives think intuition is just as valid as facts. You know, truthiness.

And we care because?

No wait, we don't.

Leftists have been propagandized to think that they can force businesses to pay workers more than they are worth to the business. Elementary logic ought to tell you that that is impossible. But, of course, elementary logic is what leftists lack (not to mention a lack of morality, decency, and compassion).

Speaking of lacking competence in remedial logic, what workers are paid has little to nothing to do with how much they are worth to the business, and its stupid to claim otherwise when the company is taking 80% or more of their output. Companies pay their workers as little as possible, unless those workers are in a strong negotiating position (powerful union, pro athletes, extremely limited labor pool like heart transplant surgeons, etc).

I know having your wingnut merit badge means shaving 50 points off your IQ, so I'll speak slowly and use small words for an example. A friend of mine used to work for a company that would wire new office buildings for telephones. Company would charge $110 per hour for the wiring, which....I'll give you a second to think about this....means by definition my friend was worth that much per hour for the contractor. He got $18.

So you're saying that a high minimum wage is a rational choice because Trump might support a tax on Amazon?

The point was simple enough to understand the first time. Do you really like paying more in taxes so more-money-than-God corporations can enjoy even more profits? Let me guess....you're one of the people who gave to the gofundme for Kyle Jenner because you "don't want to live in a world where Kylie Jenner doesn't have a billion dollars". And when you watched that old South Park episode on copyright infringement, you actually teared up when Lars Ulrich had to wait a few months to get his gold-plated shark pool for his mansion, and when Britney Spears had settle for a Gulfstream III, instead of a Gulfstream IV.

I believe the right called Obama a racist (he is - provably so - by his own words), and a Kenyan muslim anti-colonialist (again, provably so by is own words). But I don't remember him being called Hitler. Stalin, or Mao, perhaps - but not Hitler.

Fortunately your memory isn't required, we have records.

And we even remember you denying you did it before.

If you can't admit the nature of the people who you support, then your bias and hypocrisy becomes quite clear.

Nothing new either.

You've been doing it for years.

The best thing about your apologia is that you offer zero quotes or support, whereas, well, oops.

As an American it saddens me to truthfully say that most Americans today are dumbasses. ...

You might enjoy this from a few nights ago. The Daily Show interviews Trump supporters about Space Force

(Note: The above snippet on Twitter is an excerpt from a longer segment about the recent Trump South Carolina rally.)

Some excerpts from an article on the segment:

But when Kosta asked a series of Trump supporters what “Space Force” is, all he got were answers like “something we’ve been missing for a long time,” “a little bit of everything” and, in the words of one older gentleman, a “cloud computer.” That same man was worried that “terrorists” might threaten our “freedom” from space. “I think Space Force could help us prevent the next 9/11,” he said.

While NASA is “only going to tell us what they want us to know,” these Trump fans believe that the president will “tell us the truth about what’s out there.”

And then there was the guy who thought the formation of “Space ISIS” was a real possibility. “It doesn’t make a lot of sense and would be wasting a lot of dollars,” he said. “But at the same time, it’s going to be cool.”

You do make an important observation, though: it is leftists that have been going around after WWII to make groundless accusations against others of being fascists and neo-Nazis. Every Republican president over the last couple of decades has been denounced as a "fascist", "Nazi", and/or "white supremacist" by the left. Every conservative commentator or intellectual has been denounced as such.

Actually, it's conservative commentators that have a problem with it. Perhaps not every single one, but enough, that you're just being a hypocrite and fraud, protesting your own crimes that you ascribe to others.

And then you one-up'd it: By going further.

Perhaps you can blame Democrats for it, you do tend to falsely accuse them of being responsible for everything you do.

You mean the Obama you personally claimed was Muslim and you insisted was Hitler?

And you pretend you aren't doing damage to whatever rational cause that you by chance might endorse despite your own rampant insanity in favor of Buzz Windrip?

Sorry, but you shouldn't live in a glass house and throw stones. You break it, you bought it.

South Park parodied this back in 2011

I Agreed by Accident

There is even an article about HumancentiPad

One of the funniest clips of all time from the old Colbert Report:

If you put a statement in the form of a question, is that journalism?

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/...

I did read the links. O'Keefe does hidden camera investigations. The fact he did one into AntiFa isn't the only evidence against them. And the charges against O'Keefe are politically motivated bullshit - his sin was exposing the lies and bias of leftist media organisations and NGOs.

Nope. His sin was being a lying bullshit spewer, which lead to him becoming a criminal, your sin, of course, was to believe him. Repetitively.

Any prosecutor dumb enough to allow such a taint into a trial, well, no wonder incompetence is rampant.

But hey, keep relying on them, it's a big sign that you've got less than nothing.

I guess you're going to take seriously every other thing you have no evidence of either...

If you don't make a serious investigation of many problems, you'll never have the evidence. Hence the importance of attentiveness.

We're not going to investigate every election with the same intensity, but yes, we should and must continually prepare ourselves for the need to ensure our elections are not compromised or faulty(not that we're talking much about the latter, but there are multiple court cases winding their way up to the top) , and yes, some of us remember that you've made the argument that people are a bunch of sheep that aren't actually making choices as much as being manipulated.

You've made that complaint numerous times, deriding others for how easily you can lead them, and insist upon your mastery of the process.

No wonder you're trying to insist that anybody recognizing it is foolish enough to believe in long-discredited mythological beings, you don't want people to realize who you are behind the curtain.

As to mistakes... no... Gore made the mistake of not studying how Bill Clinton won.

Ross Perot suck away more votes from Papa Bush and then going against the most boring old bore in the whole damn Senate?

Yeah, I don't think that Gore could have arranged either option. He actually got snakebit by the one, then was followed by the second himself.

Hillary ultimately made the same mistakes Gore made.

Being a stultifying bore that was associated with Bill Clinton? I can't say you're wrong. Not that is what you meant. But no, her mistakes were not cultivating enough of the votes that Obama had, and not building up the outrage and anger in her own side. She passed on so many opportunities to score during the debate, it was cringe-worthy, but even beyond that, her choice of VPs was flawed. She should have picked somebody that would have provoked Trump to outrage, or even found somebody to split the GOP.

But going back to your first post:

Trump naturally is one of the most disliked presidents in US history. But he didn't win the election because people liked him. He won because for whatever reason... he said he was going to do things and people believed him.

You really should listen to people more. There's an element of people in this country that DO like Trump. They think the world of him. Either that, or my Congressman's last conference call was full of paid shills for him, I mean, other than the Congressman himself, he's a patsy for whatever right-wing Republican nonsense is the grease of the day. And he's not inclined to be stupid and asinine like some of the others. But still, the unquestioned devotion to Trump the Magnificent was palpable.

Regardless, if you're just going to "rah rah" at me, then so be it. I was trying to have a rational discussion on the issue. And what you're giving me is cultish foolishness that none but the deepest coolaid drinkers take seriously.

Everyone knows, bub. You're just embarrassing yourself.

LOL, c'mon Karmashock, it isn't like you're fooling anybody, you're just interested in ranting forth with your own monomaniacal diatribe and demanding that all persons see your unquestioned majesty as the only reasonable and thoughtful outcome.

Nobody thinks one single event loses an election, but that doesn't mean certain events aren't offensive on their own, whether they be corrupt bargains, multiple returns by unsanctioned governments, an unlawful attempted break-in, or a partisan court decision.

In some things, merely the attempt, or the possibility, is the offense. Yet you give no thought to that, despite repeated inquiries, because you dare not modify yo

Some crossovers would be nice. Maybe Wendell traps peoples' souls in his action figures? The origin story of the purple-bearded apartment building could be creepy. For some good social/political commentary there's the terrierists. And imagine being haunted by the ghost of this guy.

Clearly you don't have a clue how the world works.

So you claim, but your demonstration is false.

We don't have a 'single world government' YET.

What does this matter? Do you think it is really necessary? I actually pointed out how the rich can't really escape to another government without consequence anyway.

And government's like money more than those who actually produce it do.

The printers?

Ireland didn't create themselves as a tax haven for Apple just for 'shits & giggles', they made money off it, via jobs or limited taxation.

Indeed, Apple promised things to Ireland in order to get favorable treatment. That's a commonly recognized problem. You give people an incentive, they can do things that are ill-advised, immoral, or just mistaken.

See how much they fought the EU in not wanting to collect 'owed taxes'.

Yes, the Irish government wanted to have their cake so they could eat it. Delicious! But somebody had to remind them that they'd agreed to eat their vegetables. See also how Ireland is reacting to the Brexit demands. They want the UK to act in accordance with existing agreements too.

Now consider all the African countries, South American etc. looking to grow & need money. They'll gladly set up rules to allow these corporations to legally avoid taxes in the US & other Western countries for a much smaller cut of the buy...presumably to fund their own version of UBI maybe?

Yes, various countries are already compromising themselves, but no, I wouldn't presume they'd be funding their own version of UBI, they'd be funding the palaces for their wealthy potentates. This may be cheap in a fiscal sense, but it's morally expensive. And like I said, puts them in a place where the rich risk their existing gains.

And let's get this straight, EVERYONE is 'desperate to keep what they have', actually poor & middle class more than the rich. I don't know anyone in the poor & middle class that likes paying their taxes or would not prefer to pay less, the rich may care but it hardly matters to whether they can feed themselves or live.

Indeed, the rich don't have to worry about deprivation like the poor and middle class, that's always been the case. But they are quite willing to go to many lengths in order to ensure their further enrichment, even including fabricated moralities.

This is why the poor & middle class keep claiming the rich "don't pay their fair share" even though the top 20% of earners pay 88% of taxes (https://nypost.com/2017/10/05/yes-us-tax-cuts-will-mainly-benefit-those-who-pay-the-most-taxes/)...

Yes, the rich keep claiming it's the poor and middle class who are the parasites and leaches, even as the share of wealth held by the rich grows, and their servants in government can't make promises about helping anybody except the rich.

It was also the case back in the early 1900s, the 1800s, the 1700s...

And no the Greece issues weren't 'manufactured hysteria', I don't know who you're trying to troll, but go away, and maybe take some of your own advice on understanding world politics & economics.

Your complete lack of foundation to your assertions is hardly persuasive. Sorry, I don't know if you're just fooling yourself, but maybe you should reflect on your own arguments before chiding others.

I mean, you could have endeavored to present your case better, but all you've got here is vituperation.

Once upon a time, I bought and started playing Pandemic. Right after, just as I started enjoying the game, there was the West African Ebola outbreak. And now? I start replaying Fallout and this happens.

That's it. From here on out my only entertainment will be re-watching the Death by Snu Snu episode.

I try not to get too political.

You mean to say, that you try to cover yourself with a pretense of being "not too political" in order to give a false air of legitimacy to your faux grievances?

However, I can't help but notice how it's now "your civic duty" to "resist" and generally disparage the government.

Ah, picking up the messaging of the right-wing that carried over from Reagan, huh?

Questioning their authority has long been a problem of the right-wing conservative branch. They were even worse when beating the anti-Communist drum. There's a reason why McCarthy ran rampant.

Prior to January 20, 2017, that meant you were a racist deplorable scumbag.

When you embrace Cliven Bundy, Phil Robertson, Joe Arpaio and the birther-in-chief himself, Donald Trump, does that not make you one of their racist brotherhood? I mean, it isn't like you are giving them like the love to a leper victim, you were shouting your devotion in chorus.

Still are. You can't even let NFL players kneel in protest without having a fit. You'd probably explode if they used the Black Power Salute.

Journalists were being tossed in the pokey, phones were being tapped to find "leakers", etc. Apparently, now that's all just police state tactics.

Yeah, sorry, Fox News tried that already.

The real question is, why are you so suddenly supportive of the "police" state you allegedly deplored, why do you demand everybody march to the orders of your glorious leader, why do you insist so vehemently that everything is going well and that you should get all the credit for it?

Well, IMHO the cry of Racism is so over used, that it has lost all meaning, to the point where Charlottesville violence was initially panned by a lot of people (including me).

Well, IMHO, the denial of racism and bigotry is so widespread by people for whom such a defense is blatantly false that it has developed a new meaning, to the point where Donald Trump's response to the Charlottesville incident was mistaken and ill-advised.

Crying wolf works until it doesn't, and we have actually reached that point.

Yes, crying wolf about being called "Nazi" has reached that point of not working.

It especially doesn't work when you remember this.

And you are probably right, that it was sarcastic trolling, but there is a very real chance it wasn't. And that doubt is telling.

Nope, the doubt is not useful for what you want it to be, though your decision that it is, is a telling factor, as you are endorsing a view simply because it supports your position. My estimation is that there is no reason for an informed person to believe it is anything other than the subterfuge of trolls who want to create an atmosphere of dis-credibility. Really, for all we know, you posted it yourself to have your own justification.

Very few people had Nazi flags in that protest, but EVERYONE on that side is being labeled a Nazi.

Blah-blah-blah, whining that you aren't a Nazi, how dare anybody point out you aren't wearing the finest clothes, you're the Emperor!

There was no "I'm also protesting, but for free speech, I'm not a Nazi" group.

Sure there was, the problem is, you just happen to be unable to distance yourselves from the racist bigots you fervently defend. See all of the "free speechers" who whine endlessly over the left, but can NEVER EVER muster up a critique of the right at all.

Not even against Mr. Corruption Itself, Donald, the Fraud, Trump.

Why is that you only defend the right-wing free speech? Why is it you never protest over the murder of a doctor who provides abortions? A black teen in his own home? A polluter getting away with it?

You are either for taking down statues, or a Nazi, no middle ground allowed.

That's nice. Have you heard what the pro-statue movement has said? They've claimed that modern-day Democrats are the party of slavery, that tearing down those statues means we have to tear down all other statutes, and all sorts of other vacuous and vapid defenses, like claiming that we should learn about history.

Ok, we did, and the history says those statues were put up to celebrate White Rule. Now what?

That's the problem. If your side is labeled the Nazi side, then you lose automatically. Be prepared to see the Nazi labeled thrown around everywhere to shut people up.

What are you, twenty years behind? Damn, you know that's a bad argument right?

The Electoral College operates the exact same way the Congress does.

That's terrible then. Frightfully so. I shudder at the thought.

It prevents the bigger states from being big bullies and pushing everyone around.

It does no such thing.

Otherwise, the smaller states would have no interest in being part of the Union.

And so instead, we discredit the election system for the sake of a phony, ineffective solution? GREAT JOB.

If you are butt hurt about the Electoral College then you should be equally butt hurt about the Congress.

Um...we are, or haven't you noticed the numerous complaints about malappoirtioment, gerrymandering, and even lack of term limits? There's a reason why Congress polls so poorly. It doesn't represent the people.

They are both designed the same way for the same reason.

Poorly, because the Founding Fathers were incompetent fools who failed TWICE to develop a proper government, and that we're lucky somehow lurches along with some semblance of effectiveness?

Look at how quickly they had to write the 12th Amendment, and they STILL didn't fix things properly.

So petty virtue signalling is better than telling Trump things he needs to hear.

Trump doesn't listen, what's the point of a feel-good membership on a pointless council that accomplishes nothing except legitimizing an incompetent boob?

You really don't make me feel very good about voting Democrat in the next election. If you are an accurate reflection on the Democrat mindset then it's horribly unhinged and divorced from any sort of pragmatism.

And as a critic of Democrats, you make me feel very good about not voting for Republicans in the next election. Your mindset is horribly unhinged and divorced from any connection to reality.

That's an extra bonus above and beyond advocating the labeling people as Nazis so you can act like one yourself.

Yeah, about that...

The Daily Show on Comedy Central did just that:

http://www.cc.com/shows/the-da...

There is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally. ⦠As nearly as we can, we must put ourselves in the place of those who uttered the words, and try to divine how they would have dealt with the unforeseen situation; and, although their words are by far the most decisive evidence of what they would have done, they are by no means final.

Judge Learned Hand.

What is morality if you cannot set your own mind to it? If we accept that taxes are the price to pay for society, then what shall we do but decide the means for it? Given that we know the value of what they own, how can we expect so much more from the poor? Perhaps the wealthy should demand less if they want their taxes reduced.

Get Philip J. Fry to do it: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...

abortion market can pay out
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/...

You can get it from here - http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...

I'd let her take a seat on my face.

Don't forget Moscow Donald wants to bang his daughter.

Cutting taxes is not giving.

It is, when those taxes were paying for services received, and instead of paying for them through taxes, you issue bonds which those wealthy snap up.

They double-dip, you know.

And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

Or we could do this.

You're just being stupid, raising a pointless strawman argument that does not resolve differences or explain anything, but merely makes you look irate.

Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

Have you read what's happening in Kansas? They followed the plan of handouts to the rich. How's that worked out for them?

Sorry, but you can believe the lie brigade about CT if you want, KS is still a failure. It's a logjam due to partisan politics.

Gosh, After all this dehumanising of anyone who disagrees with you, how did they not see your side, and the moral righteousness of your position?

Oh, that's very easy for them. After all, they're the only rightful ones, and everybody else is just an anti-American hater who wants to take away their peculiar institutions. It's entirely expected, and easy to fathom. Realizing that you're being an a monstrous and wretched being takes tremendous moral strength, it's much easier to go with the rampaging mob.

Perhaps if you call them racist a few more times, you might gain their support. Or maybe a few more Hitler comparisons. Maybe shouting at them about how stupid they are might persuade some of them. Worked before, as these tactics carried Hillary to victory!

Certainly Trump was not hesitant about his own manner of despising people. You know, the ones who he blindly painted as Thugs, the ones who he said were fools for not following him, the ones who he said were dumb enough to keep voting for Democrats. The babykillers! The Crooks! And boy did he shout and rail.

Exactly when are you planning on admitting that happened? A word of rebuke? No??

Or will we get another?

Hillary's mistake was actually being hesitant on it. She should have picked a VP candidate that the birthers would have gone full-on nuts over, they'd drive a ton of people to the polls.

We don't really care that much when people insult the president, and we can think badly of such people or goodly of them. That part doesn't matter.

Some of us remember differently.

People aren't going after him for the rest of his monologue, which was also very insulting, and they don't complain about John Oliver or Bill Maher when they face the camera and rattle off insults with no wit or insight.

Yes, they are, and yes they do.

It's the explicit profanity, and Colbert knows better.

You only care because Colbert hurt your precious Turnip's feelings, and yet we know better, because of this one time.

Yeah, that's a tip-off.

It's not that surprising since the whole "drain the swamp" mantra was just something someone in Trump's campaign team proposed as a slogan, but that Trump didn't like. He then tried it out at a meeting, discovered it caught on, and kept using it. That's what Trump himself said after the elections anyway.

> I would also like you to explain to me what a "Social Justice Warrior" is

Replace the words with:

Stupid
Juvenile
Whiner

and you'll start to understand it what it means.

SJW is (typically) a dumb Gen Z with a pet peeve over some perceived bullshit "injustice" -- basically anything that doesn't agree with THEIR myopic philosophy. Now instead of actually _doing_ something AFTER careful analysis of BOTH sides of the issue, because issues are almost never black and white, they would rather have a knee-jerk reaction and whine about it instead.

For more information see the book:

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

There is no reasoning with these irrational people. They believe their POV (point-of-view) is the ONLY right one and blindly ignore facts. The classic attack is the ad hominem using labels as misogynist, trigger, microagression, etc. They are so insecure with their immaturity that they have to attack everyone else who doesn't agree with them. It is the ultimate Political Censorship gone wrong.

South Park poked fun of their stupidity in Season 19 by calling them Pussy Crushers

* Truth and Advertising
* PC Principal or DailyMotion

The only valid tactic is to ignore these whiney cunts -- because they make the classic Internet Trolls look like Saints in comparison -- otherwise you are just wasting your time.

You can fix ignorant.
You can't fix Stupid (Juvenile Whiners.)

> I would also like you to explain to me what a "Social Justice Warrior" is

Replace the words with:

Stupid
Juvenile
Whiner

and you'll start to understand it what it means.

SJW is (typically) a dumb Gen Z with a pet peeve over some perceived bullshit "injustice" -- basically anything that doesn't agree with THEIR myopic philosophy. Now instead of actually _doing_ something AFTER careful analysis of BOTH sides of the issue, because issues are almost never black and white, they would rather have a knee-jerk reaction and whine about it instead.

For more information see the book:

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

There is no reasoning with these irrational people. They believe their POV (point-of-view) is the ONLY right one and blindly ignore facts. The classic attack is the ad hominem using labels as misogynist, trigger, microagression, etc. They are so insecure with their immaturity that they have to attack everyone else who doesn't agree with them. It is the ultimate Political Censorship gone wrong.

South Park poked fun of their stupidity in Season 19 by calling them Pussy Crushers

* Truth and Advertising
* PC Principal or DailyMotion

The only valid tactic is to ignore these whiney cunts -- because they make the classic Internet Trolls look like Saints in comparison -- otherwise you are just wasting your time.

You can fix ignorant.
You can't fix Stupid (Juvenile Whiners.)

I pasted this into Bash and my computer sprouted limbs, walked out of the room, and kicked my dog square in the balls. The part about this that really has me weirded out is that I don't actually own a dog.

But do you think that's a good thing, or a bad thing?

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...

Insert obligatory xkc...wait a minute...South Park is actually appropriate here.

Give us some of that internet money! http://southpark.cc.com/clips/...

Reminds me of this old joke.

Here's the thing about my certainty as compared to the folks you are talking about.

Obama never said anything about sharia law, taking everyone's guns, or declaring himself president for life. That was all right-wing agitprop. Obama was perfectly reasonable about those things. And many others. I think he was a very good president, as they go. One of our best. I don't agree with everything he supports by any means, but the odds of that are pretty much zero no matter who is in there. I don't think he did much additional harm, and he did a great deal of good. There's plenty left to fix, of course -- he did let a number of things continue that I would really rather he had put a stop to. Perhaps someone in the future will get to some of those. Or not.

Trump, however, has stuffed his cabinet with the ultra-rich who have specific public agendas that counter a great deal of the remaining good things about this country, not to mention stating intent to roll back a lot of social progress -- yes, progress -- and both he and they have stated multiple goals that range from simply unconstitutional to outrageous.

All it would take for him to really put a hurt on the middle- and low-income folks is to follow through on one or two things, such as actually flushing the immigrants out (watch the prices of fruit and vegetables skyrocket) or applying high tariffs to Chinese imports (watch the prices in big-box, electronics, and clothing store skyrocket) or simply pissing them off really bad about Taiwan (same result is very likely, only perhaps worse)... I mean seriously, the difference is that Obama said nothing crazy, that was all the right-wingers pushing a false narrative. Finding something crazy Trump claims he is going to do... that's the work of a few seconds. The problem there is picking one out of the many to focus upon.

On the other hand, Trump has recently been very forward in explaining how he straight-up lied to those he got to vote for him.

Just listen to him. Never mind that it's the Daily Show: ignore everything Trevor Noah has to say and listen to what Trump has to say. His voters were hoodwinked, plain and simple.

So when I say I'm certain... these are are consequences that will arise from actions Trump and his cabinet have indicated direct intent for. It's not "like Obama." It's "like Trump."

Bottom line: It looks like a person specifically stating intent to implement seriously problematic policies is going to become president. I anticipate problems if that is the case. Does that really seem unreasonable to you?

Anyway, if you still think this is "like Obama", I am pretty confident you're really not seeing the big picture: I encourage you to apply a very serious think to the axioms here. Perhaps you'll change positions. Some people can.

And yet Obama said himself in this interview with Trevor Noah two days ago that the hacked emails were "frankly not very interesting", with "nothing explosive" and just "fairly routine stuff". @3:30-4:00 and @5:20
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...

So Obama makes a public announcement that a "deep dive" secret, covert operation is about to begin, and then one day later the Obama appointed CIA officials conclude that the operation is complete and they know Putin's intent, that he wanted to help Trump get elected by... releasing uninteresting emails.

Obama derangement syndrome was real, but Trump derangement is an order of magnitude worse. In 2008 Obama just had to deal with occasional rumors about his birthplace and whatever remnants of open white supremacy still exist in the 21st century, not a year-long media campaign with open, unabashed attempts to portray him as a literal fascist and the second coming of Hitler.

No, actually, they went to COURT and sued over it. It was years-long resistance, and completely delusional. Your representation does not capture the reality.

On the other hand, Trump's been sued for things he ACTUALLY did to fuck others up.

Every president gets compared to Hitler of course, but usually by random nutjobs, not major MSM outlets.

LOL, stop lying Megyn Kelly.

BTW that voice in your head right now saying "Well that's different, Trump really is Hitler"? That's the TDS talking.

Yeah, it's not like we don't have plenty of complaints about Trump. That's the derangement.

Then of course there is the constant effort to label Trump and everyone associated with him with every "-ism" they can think of. Freaking Ben Carson is a white supremacist; Steve Bannon is a nazi because Breitbart supports confederate flags and Bannon may or may not have said something weakly anti-semitic in a private conversation 20+ years ago; Trump voters are all KKKers because one attention whore neonazi threw a rally attended by more reporters than people and declared himself king of the alt-right.

Nope. Ben Carson is a bad choice for ANY cabinet post, let alone the one they mysteriously gave him, it's funny, you're worried about some imaginary criticism of him as if nobody heard his other crazy shit. Steve Bannon? He is a fool, who buys into all the right-wing nonsense, or at least panders to it. That alone is an indictment. And no, it's not all of them. It's just enough of them that maybe we'd like to have seen Trump show some signs of resisting that very dangerous undercurrent, rather than refuse to admit knowing who David Duke is. Maybe you should stop making up phantom strawman criticisms you can tear down and face some real ones.

It's like all the people whining that they can't criticize Obama "because he's black" when in reality, their problem was that they were a bunch of fools who couldn't resist the temptation to pretend their useless criticisms were somehow valid and accuse those dismissing them as somehow being twisted by race. Can't possibly be that there were legitimate arguments.

(Oh yeah, and then there's this thread blaming him for shit happening before he's even in office. And wasn't Obamacare specifically supposed to do the opposite of things like this?)

Trump's a billionaire, of course he's done shit before getting into office. Some of it is QUITE deplorable.

And the Republicans are the ones who have fought the PPACA tooth and nail, so why would you think it was allowed to be effective when so many states even refused to expand Medicaid? It's like you're blaming somebody for not fixing the roof, when you've been taking away their tools.

It's a false flag operation to distract everyone from Donald Trump saying he wants to bang his daughter.

They're doing exactly what they said they feared Trump supporters would do if he lost

They're doing nothing at all like what Trump[supporters] did before the results were even known. First of all, Trump himself claimed the election was rigged before any evidence at all surfaced. Then, his supporters claimed there has already been mass election fraud without any evidence. This was well beyond what any candidate or party has done before. No surprise the results of this were a lot of voter intimidation (funny). Note this is the first election since the Voting Rights Act has been curtailed.

My point is that one side has already gone well, well beyond the norm when it comes to claiming an election is rigged. I'm quite positive they would've done more than mostly peaceful rallies if they had lost. Now, the dems have this study, and are simply asking for more investigation. So tone down the outrage.

Reminds me of this joke.

Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion. But regardless, Mashiki wasn't comparing Obama and Trump, he was comparing people in general (I suppose especially US citizens). Read what he said: "...were _people_ so rabidly insane" (emphasis added). He's presumably talking about the protests against the election, not about Obama or Trump themselves. (He also talks about Hilary Clinton.)

So ok, let's say DogDude got off the rails a bit, should we then go back and question Mashiki's claims a bit?

Well, Mashiki was talking about people not being so rabidly insane after Obama's election and relection. Ahem. That's a falsehood too, there's plenty of rabidly insane comments from those days. Even the Donald himself. Oh well, he deleted them. I guess they never happened.

I say many of these people were rabidly insane. Insofar as it is a figurative language, not a clinical diagnosis, but I think we know that.

It's like the Nazi comparisons which people on Fox never made. Or how there was no racism before Obama. (Then there's how she's wrong about the schools and neighborhoods shot up, and so forth.)

I'll grant the chair business wasn't entirely crazy. It raised flags with me, but ok, I'll let you just pass him off as Hollywood loony, not crazy.

And do note, I've not gone into the depths too far. This is not comprehensive, it is just enough to show that some people did go off the deep end. And if you look at the other comments, you will see, that they deny any, any craziness at all.

Of course, I'll say that the 70% who believe America is going in the wrong direction, unsourced though that is, would just as well cover people who think Trump being nominated, and winning as anything else. So they could be right. But of course, it's not sourced, so no idea what was truly being polled.