|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 18 2017 22:21 farvacola wrote:Yet more evidence in support of the notion that many of the most vigorous opponents of gay rights happen to be deep in the closet themselves. It would be tragic if these fucks weren't working so hard to keep the hate flowing.
I don’t think anyone with a healthy relationship to their own sexuality has ever had any problem with gays or considered them a threat.
It’s interesting that the most homophobic milieux are the ones where latent, closeted homosexuality is the most prevalent; usually typically male institutions like sport teams, firemen, the army, or churches of different faiths.
|
On November 19 2017 00:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:If we’re going for anecdotes, I always thought the big male celebrity “women’s rights” advocates were secretly abusers, because they knew they’d get a pass. That one turned out pretty good too. Oh but simply being a hypocritical douche is not nearly as juicy as spending your life defending “family values” by making people’s life miserable and spreading hatred and biggotry simply because you hate yourself. Right wing doesn’t have the monopoly of hypocrisy, but when they do it, geez, they deliver. I mean the guy spends his life attacking gays and is found with his cock in some dude’s mouth. Can’t make that up.
That makes the other dude gay, not him (is what I'm sure he told himself).
On November 19 2017 00:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s interesting that the most homophobic milieux are the ones where latent, closeted homosexuality is the most prevalent; usually typically male institutions like sport teams, firemen, the army, or churches of different faiths.
It seems unintuitive, but actually makes sense I guess. In less homophobic environments, there is less need for homosexuality to be closeted.
|
On Friday night, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones appeared on Fox News to weigh in on the recent “reckoning” of Bill Clinton.
When asked by Laura Ingraham what she thought about Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand‘s recent remarks how the former president should have resigned, Jones claimed it was “a little too late for that.”
“It makes you wonder if they truly mean what they say because us women didn’t get any help from those liberal women,” Jones said. “They ridiculed us. We were called all kind of names. We were not believed. And I hope that it’s true that they think that now. But I don’t know that I believe it.”
Broaddrick said this “great epiphany” should have occurred 20 years ago and that she doesn’t feel “ecstatic,” but “very disappointed.”
Ingraham then played a clip from a radio interview Hillary Clinton gave earlier when she said the following:
“Every situation has to be judged on its own merit. And there were allegations that were disproved… It’s unfortunate that people are either misremembering or misinterpreting history.”
This sparked quite a reaction from Jones and Broaddrick.
“I’m not misinterpreting- I’m not- no, no, no, no, no,” Jones reacted. “That is so ludicrous what she just said! I mean, seriously? I cannot believe that lady would say that. And nothing was misinterpreted. I know what happened to me in that room that day.”
“I agree with you, Paula,” Broaddrick said.
Jones urged the former First Lady to “talk to us women” if she believes the accusations aren’t true.
“She knew. She’s been enabling him for years,” Jones continued. “She’s been hiding this stuff for him for years. If you’re married to a man and you don’t know your husband is doing this, something is wrong. And you know, they claim to have such a wonderful marriage and she stood by her man but let me tell you, she knew what he was doing. And the only reason why they ever stayed together is because it was a political marriage.”
Broaddrick claimed that “no human being was protected more” than Clinton.
“And no human being was more harassed and ridiculed and trashed as Bill Clinton’s victims were,” Broaddrick stated.
Watch the clip above, via Fox
www.mediaite.com
Also in twit news
|
On November 19 2017 00:29 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 00:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 19 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:If we’re going for anecdotes, I always thought the big male celebrity “women’s rights” advocates were secretly abusers, because they knew they’d get a pass. That one turned out pretty good too. Oh but simply being a hypocritical douche is not nearly as juicy as spending your life defending “family values” by making people’s life miserable and spreading hatred and biggotry simply because you hate yourself. Right wing doesn’t have the monopoly of hypocrisy, but when they do it, geez, they deliver. I mean the guy spends his life attacking gays and is found with his cock in some dude’s mouth. Can’t make that up. That makes the other dude gay, not him (is what I'm sure he told himself). Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 00:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s interesting that the most homophobic milieux are the ones where latent, closeted homosexuality is the most prevalent; usually typically male institutions like sport teams, firemen, the army, or churches of different faiths. It seems unintuitive, but actually makes sense I guess. In less homophobic environments, there is less need for homosexuality to be closeted.
I think it’s the opposite. Homophobia strives in environment where a toxic version of macho masculinity makes men feel horribly threatened by homosexuality because of what they might discover about themselves. I’ve been mildly attracted to some guys when i was a teenager and before finding myself but never felt it was a problem. If it had been something horrible, i would have probably started to consider every gay man as a menace. You have to listen to biggots talk about LGBT people. Their vocabulary is always one of threat, menace and danger (officialy to the “american family” or “family values”, which of course makes 0 sense).
The amount of catholic priests i have met who were obviously closeted is just amazing (i would argue that most catholic priest i met, including my grand uncle, chose to be priests precisely because they were gay and couldn’t accept it - therefore chosing a life of celibate rather than having to deal with it). I also remember hanging out with rugbymen who would have broken your skull if you suggested they were a bit ambyvalent but couldn’t stop touching each other ass. As bros, of course.
I had a conservative muslim with me in middle school. Once he said “i wouldn’t shake hand with a gay man, i would be scared he would fuck me in the ass”. I thought that said plenty about his own fantasies.
We hate what theatens us. If you are clear, accepting and open with yourselves, and void of sexual contradiction, a gay person is completely unthreatening.
|
Trumps first year "to do" list:
-repeal Obama care:X
-tax reforms:V
-build a wall:X
-deal with isis:V
-deal with korea:X
-good for the economy:V
-withdraw from paris agreement:V
-lock her up:X
-say whatever he wants:V
-drain the swamp:X
-not getting impeached:V
Feel free to add.
|
On November 19 2017 01:32 pmh wrote:
Trumps first year:
-repeal Obama care:X
-tax reforms:V
-build a wall:X
-deal with isis:V
-deal with korea:X
-good for the economy:V
-withdraw from paris agreement:V
-lock her up:X
-say whatever he wants:V
-drain the swamp:X
Feel free to add.
Good for the economy? We are rolling on Obama’s economies for at least a couple of years. Wait 4 years and we’ll see how that amazing tax plan of his does.
Also, attributing ISIS retreat to Trump at that point is a joke. Apart from tweeting kike a maniac and boasting about his beautiful chocolate cake decisions, he hasn’t contributed much (not that anyone would expect a president to solve such a long term problem in a few months in office, to be fait with him).
|
On November 19 2017 01:32 pmh wrote:
Trumps first year "to do" list:
-repeal Obama care:X
-tax reforms:V
-build a wall:X
-deal with isis:V
-deal with korea:X
-good for the economy:V
-withdraw from paris agreement:V
-lock her up:X
-say whatever he wants:V
-drain the swamp:X
-not getting impeached:V
Feel free to add.
is V supposed to be a yes/done?
I don't see tax reform done yet.
there's also a number of issues of causation/getting credit for things; i.e. whether he should be credited at all for things which would've happened anyways, and in which he contributed nothing to them actually happening (setting aside the question of whether they're even a good thing to do)
|
v=yes. Its not all that serious and I know he can not be credited for 100% for any of those things but they still did happen more or less.
I think tax reform will go through. "to many rich people will benefit from it to let it fail" would be a cynical way to analyze it.
|
On November 19 2017 01:47 pmh wrote:
v=yes. Its not all that serious and I know he can not be credited for 100% for any of those things but they still did happen more or less.
I think tax reform will go through. "to many rich people will benefit from it to let it fail" would be a cynical way to analyze it.
the issue isn't "not being credited 100%" but being credited more than 0% which is a very important distinction. in some cases he gets 0% credit. is a yes check justified if he has absolutely ZERO credit for them happening?
I don't see tax reform getting throguh reliably, the politics of the current situation shows a considerable chance for failure.
|
On November 19 2017 01:47 pmh wrote:
v=yes. Its not all that serious and I know he can not be credited for 100% for any of those things but they still did happen more or less.
I think tax reform will go through. "to many rich people will benefit from it to let it fail" would be a cynical way to analyze it.
To many affected by the complete destruction of the Healthcare system
I don't see how it could ever pass the Senate when all other attempts failed.
|
On November 18 2017 15:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 15:33 Nyxisto wrote:You don't take empirical economics seriously? This isn't occult quantum physics. This relationship between inequality and mobility has been long known as the Gatsby curve and has been confirmed by much more than just a single studyAnd while we're on the topic of selectivity quoting. From that last source Yet while many Americans will experience some level of affluence during their lives, a much smaller percentage of them will do so for an extended period of time. Although 12% of the population will experience a year in which they find
themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution, a mere 0.6% will do so in 10 consecutive years. This makes it seem a lot more compatible with general findings on mobility That actually makes it seem even more mobile right? If 100% of people were in the top 1% for a decade of their life there'd be something funny going on.
I assume it's just the edge cases at the different classes dropping in and out? Numbers like 60%+ making it into the top 10% for 1 year seems completely absurd, do they all win the lottery and then threw it out of the window? That can't really be right
|
Yeah there's no way that makes sense in plain terms, I'd guess there's a weighting to entitlement eligibility or some other "hidden" wealth event that's distorting that number.
|
On November 19 2017 01:32 pmh wrote:
Trumps first year "to do" list:
-repeal Obama care:X
-tax reforms:V
-build a wall:X
-deal with isis:V
-deal with korea:X
-good for the economy:V
-withdraw from paris agreement:V
-lock her up:X
-say whatever he wants:V
-drain the swamp:X
-not getting impeached:V
Feel free to add. W. This makes about just as much sense.
|
I've felt for many years that the worst part of a Republican presidency would be that it would give Congressional Republicans free reign over making stupid shit happen as in the Bush era. I suppose it's a humorous sort of irony that the Congressional Republicans are now paralyzed by their own badness. Of course I know they have and will pass the occasional stupidity, and that Congressional Democrats are no angels themselves. But perhaps under the current conditions deadlock is a blessing where it happens. The tax plan or healthcare plan or any of the other major initiatives pushed as major Trump legislation would just make things significantly worse.
|
On November 19 2017 03:45 LegalLord wrote:
I've felt for many years that the worst part of a Republican presidency would be that it would give Congressional Republicans free reign over making stupid shit happen as in the Bush era. I suppose it's a humorous sort of irony that the Congressional Republicans are now paralyzed by their own badness. Of course I know they have and will pass the occasional stupidity, and that Congressional Democrats are no angels themselves. But perhaps under the current conditions deadlock is a blessing where it happens. The tax plan or healthcare plan or any of the other major initiatives pushed as major Trump legislation would just make things significantly worse.
Well at the moment Trump agenda is to undo everything the black man did, tweeting like a retarded teen and boasting that he will fix in the most hugest way stuff he has no interest in even starting to understand. Can’t go very far with it.
The healthcare stuff is especially enlightening. Republicans opposed it for years without having the start of a beginning of an idea of what to do instead. And they have brainwashed their electorate into thinking Obamacare was the worst thing since Hitler, but eveytime they want to repel it it shows painfully they can’t come up with anything that is not a total shitshow.
Politics level 0.
|
On November 19 2017 01:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
We hate what theatens us. If you are clear, accepting and open with yourselves, and void of sexual contradiction, a gay person is completely unthreatening.
that is a big ask.
at least half the people i work with have some aspect of themselves they bury. furthermore, at some level this denial of some aspect of themselves has utility at some other level. for these people it becomes a "way of being".
playing "word cop" with these people won't fix things....
On November 19 2017 01:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You have to listen to biggots talk about LGBT people. Their vocabulary is always one of threat, menace and danger (officialy to the “american family” or “family values”, which of course makes 0 sense).
On November 19 2017 01:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I had a conservative muslim with me in middle school. Once he said “i wouldn’t shake hand with a gay man, i would be scared he would fuck me in the ass”. I thought that said plenty about his own fantasies.
|
On November 19 2017 02:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 15:52 IgnE wrote:On November 18 2017 15:33 Nyxisto wrote:You don't take empirical economics seriously? This isn't occult quantum physics. This relationship between inequality and mobility has been long known as the Gatsby curve and has been confirmed by much more than just a single studyAnd while we're on the topic of selectivity quoting. From that last source Yet while many Americans will experience some level of affluence during their lives, a much smaller percentage of them will do so for an extended period of time. Although 12% of the population will experience a year in which they find
themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution, a mere 0.6% will do so in 10 consecutive years. This makes it seem a lot more compatible with general findings on mobility That actually makes it seem even more mobile right? If 100% of people were in the top 1% for a decade of their life there'd be something funny going on. I assume it's just the edge cases at the different classes dropping in and out? Numbers like 60%+ making it into the top 10% for 1 year seems completely absurd, do they all win the lottery and then threw it out of the window? That can't really be right
I'd assume it's something like GH said. If you have 1 big year for whatever reason. Something like you having to pay out your pension plan to cover something or something like a small business owner that ended up selling it when he got older because noone in the family to continue running it resulting in maybe one year that has him at high 6digit or low 7 digit earnings
|
On November 19 2017 03:45 LegalLord wrote:
I've felt for many years that the worst part of a Republican presidency would be that it would give Congressional Republicans free reign over making stupid shit happen as in the Bush era. I suppose it's a humorous sort of irony that the Congressional Republicans are now paralyzed by their own badness. Of course I know they have and will pass the occasional stupidity, and that Congressional Democrats are no angels themselves. But perhaps under the current conditions deadlock is a blessing where it happens. The tax plan or healthcare plan or any of the other major initiatives pushed as major Trump legislation would just make things significantly worse.
the system is made for gridlock. people screaming the world was going to end due to Trump winning now look almost as ridiculous as the people who said Trump had no chance of winning.
if Trump wants to push forth major legislation he is going to have to play politics, make compromises, and trade favours just like every other US Prez.
same shit.. different decade... of course for the 20 year olds posting non-stop on twitter and instagram they've never voted in a different decade .... soo umm ya.
|
On November 19 2017 01:32 pmh wrote:
Trumps first year "to do" list:
-repeal Obama care:X
-tax reforms:V
-build a wall:X
-deal with isis:V
-deal with korea:X
-good for the economy:V
-withdraw from paris agreement:V
-lock her up:X
-say whatever he wants:V
-drain the swamp:X
-not getting impeached:V
Feel free to add.
Some of those V's are rather questionable, ranging from jumping the gun on tax reform passing to is not being impeached really the bar the conservatives are setting for themselves. Trump's biggest accomplishment thus far has to be the SC appointment with Gorsuch. It took little to no effort on Trump's part but it's still a considerable victory for the GOP. I echo sentiments about what other people have said about "good for economy".
The one point that you gave a V for that I'm less aware on is ISIS. What policy(-ies) did Trump/GOP specifically enacted that you can attribute ISIS weakening to them, and not the previous administration?
|
On November 19 2017 01:32 pmh wrote:
Trumps first year "to do" list:
-repeal Obama care:X
-tax reforms:V
-build a wall:X
-deal with isis:V
-deal with korea:X
-good for the economy:V
-withdraw from paris agreement:V
-lock her up:X
-say whatever he wants:V
-drain the swamp:X
-not getting impeached:V
Feel free to add.
How did Trump "deal with ISIS"? That sounds to me like he did something and as a result of that something, ISIS is no longer a threat to the United States (or, even better, the world).
Or is this one of those "He dealt with ISIS because Obama created ISIS and Trump is now president and Obama is not" things that shouldn't be taken seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
