hpslugga

He and the rest of those clowns share a common strength: an unlimited capacity to pretend to know what they do not know, which is equaled only by their unlimited capacity to pretend not to know what they do know.

Yeah there was already a big set up near the Omni on Saturday with these two douchebags with a barricade decorated with these posters “demanding a new election.” It’s funny that these stupid right wingers claim to be constitutionalists when well over 90% of what they’ve been suggesting be done by this “outrage” of a “rigged election” run in direct contradiction of anything the constitution has to say about presidential elections. And they have the fucking nerve to pretend to be offended when we call them stupid. As I said before, if they’re offended by that, then I’m offended that they’re offended.

https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-says-coup-like-myanmar-should-happen-america-1596248 This pansy seems to be living in a world where America is following in the footsteps of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and that makes him some spokesperson for La Prensa, I guess.

He’s definitely been an invaluable piece to mainstream “news” that’s been missing for a very long time. It’s not exactly “Democracy Now! has invaded HBO,” but I’ll take it.

What’d I do now?

Easy. South Texas is America’s right hand (Michigan is the left) and neither can quite reach Florida to jerk it off, Cuba won’t suck it, so America as a whole becomes this dysfunctional, oddly shaped, sexually repressed character that resorts to violence.

Oh for fuck's sake, a couple months ago I also saw a guy with a sign on Mockingbird and 75. Thought it was just a run of the mill panhandler, then I got closer and realized this dude lived in or around HP and his sign said "Reject teaching critical race theory at HPISD Schools."

I would love to drop in on a sermon like that just so I could say from the back of the gallery "you mean like it's "against" abortion?......NUMBERS CHAPTER 5!!!" and just fucking run.. My 40 yard dash time isn't what it used to be, but I'm pretty sure I'd clear out of their range in the 5 minutes it would take for them to say "STOP HIM; HE'S HEADED FOR THE WINDOW!!!"

Uh ok? That's poor reasoning: 1. They're going to accuse us of antisemitism regardless of how accurate the comments are. If they're not flattering to Israel, BAM, antisemitism! 2. The only thing that matters is whether what you're saying is true or false. If you want to "apologize for posts," it should be because what you said was wrong. If it wasn't wrong? Fuck them.

Clearly to aggy, spitters are not quitters

And that Bin Laden was financing ANTIFA along with George Soros and the Clinton Foundation

Exposing the ugliness of the occupation=antisemitism. Maths

More dishonesty. Calling what the IDF does in Gaza "wars" is like calling pedophilia a sexual preference. What happened in those instances were not wars. They were massacres. When one side is completely defenseless against that kind of firepower, that's a massacre. And @bad_teammate is correct: that article is categorically guilty of blame shifting and obfuscating the nature of the occupation. Hell, calling it a "conflict" or a "battle" is grotesque enough.

*reads thread* ...goddamnit

And yet there are still going to be people who defend this barbaric idiocy, and they'll even go so far as to defend their position by pointing out that the Palestinians are barbaric idiots.

And this basically happens whenever some publication comes out and takes the piss out of the Zionist government. And it’s not because they think what’s in said publication is false, it’s because they know it’s true. They’re fine when Pat Buchanan or David Duke prattle about with their nonsense...but when Richard Goldstone or Norman Finkelstein or Walt/Mearsheimer choose to pipe in? Oh they go berserk. It’s a public relations extravaganza each time, and it’s gotten to the point where more and more people are seeing it for what it is: the spoiled brat country of the UN crying wolf.

Oh boy did they try.

Fucking this

Essentially our history since 1945 has been season 9 of Roseanne after they won the Illinois state lottery. Jackie=US military leadership announcing Germany and Japan’s surrenders Roseanne=US economic elite Dan=US political leadership (the heart attack Roseanne refers to is a combination of the depression and the war) The two baby boys=Baby boomer generation

Fuh dee oh Fuuuuuh dee oh

^ I agree, and I'll offer no further comment to it. Back to the original subject, I would urge anyone interested to head to democracynow.org and examine the material they have on the subject, which by now is all over the place. There are interviews with Angela Davis, Noura Erekat and Gideon Levy in particular that allow for us to see the real world consequences of the IDF's actions rather than listening to US talking heads pontificate about "Israel has the right to defend itself" as a way to offer apologetics for the occupation.

I'll be brief and this is the only thing I'll say about it because it merits even less and I'm being extremely generous to @WhatTheBuck to even consider recalling it. Wasn't mine. Borrowed it from a relative (cousin who's a big fan). I didn't measure that but I distinctly remember having a birthday go past while reading it. In seriousness, I'd venture roughly 50-60 pages. The speech? It was perplexing in its preposterosity compounded by its verbosity. I do remember a small sliver of a passage that describes mystics and dictators being intertwined and that was the only thing I agreed with (to the extent that "mystics" is synonymous with "religious," which was my impression). What I objected to was her insipid insistence on this false dichotomy of anarcho-capitalism vs. state socialism, which is in a nutshell what he was talking about when she wrote of "brother-love morality" and a host of other garbage denouncing the concept of sacrifice and caring for others. I have seen many awful takes on socialism over the years, and hers were just about the worst. Or to put it another way, to the extent I did see anything worse than that, it at least had to have been someone else's awful takeaway from one of Rand's works, namely this one. The reason? That woman made absolutely no room for the possibility that we are a naturally social species and that being communitarian is a completely voluntary concept. She always made communitarianism to be synonymous with totalitarianism imposed by a powerful state, which is just infinite in its stupidity. “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Like Hitchens said in his critique of Rand, such an attitude requires no further reinforcement.

You’re missing the point. Let me try it another way: I. Did. Read. Atlas. Shrugged if it were made out of a cloth, I wouldn’t use it to dust my furniture. Why there are people who praise that silliness is beyond me. I cannot fathom why a single person would find it terribly useful to their lives, let alone as many in that video...and those are just major public personalities.

No, I literally mean too many people read her insipid drivel. When you consider the utter nonsense that objectivism is (btw, I would encourage those curious about it to juxtapose its tenets with the tenets of LaVeyan Satanism and try telling me they’re not identical), even that handful of characters in that video who admit to reading her verbal effluvia constitute “too many people” who read her. As for anti-Christian and anti-religion works, there are far better authors and intellectuals who’ve opined on that topic than her.