A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Chad Fuck 18,135]

No, Neil Young having sex with Kate Bush led to WWI, according to my African American over there.

Right before the redcoats took the Newark Airport in the Battle of Staten Island.

[YGIFS 19,458]

And the Brigadier General who turned away the British at the airport ramps?  You guessed it!  Frederick Douglas.  You're hearing a lot more about him these days.  I'd like to hear more FROM him as well...

[tx 3 putt 78,677]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's the thing....when Trump does this shit, it's impossible to tell whether it's because he's experienced cognitive decline, or whether it's because he's the dumbest fucking moron the planet has ever seen.

When Biden does it, it's definitely because he's lost an edge.  An edge that Trump never, ever had.  In a world of people with edges, he's a rubber spoon.

being married to a genius, ties up a lot of brain cells 

[henrygandorf 29,225]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Without disputing anything you say, from a realpolitik standpoint, America started to really lose its way after the Iron Curtain fell.  We just seem to do better with a national enemy to galvanize what seems to be our disparate hordes.

i thought we decided on mel gibson.

[Serak The Preparer 3,484]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

No, Neil Young having sex with Kate Bush led to WWI, according to my African American over there.

I see someone mention Kate Bush, I'm gonna watch the greatest video ever made. Sorry I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

 

[Pods 7,637]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

Tell me more about Biden being senile

 

That's amazing.

Two Bushes invaded the Middle East. Two Bushes served in the military (sort of for GW). Neither one of those Bushes is named Jeb. 

Both of them being named George makes it even easier. You don't even have to specify which one, just George is fine. 

But no, Trump goes with Jeb. 

Please clap. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Pods

[Jhawkmvp 1,514]

On 9/23/2023 at 10:48 PM, Biff Tannen said:

Lol what happened with Howard Stern to get dipshit all riled up?

Stern has been saying he was a good guest on his show, but he should never have been president and he has been a disaster as president and as an ex-president. He has been ragging on Trump for years since he started his run in 2015. I think he recently trashed Trump on his show once again.

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Yeah, the guy that decked out in battle garb when they cracked skulls in front of dotard’s bible publicity stunt?  Fuck that.  Standing in the way of the insurrection is biggest Chris Rock, “That’s what you supposed to do, mother fucker.” moment of his career. You shouldn’t get rewarded for doing the most basic necessities. 

Milley did not know that was going to occur until they were pretty much there.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

45 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

Stern has been saying he was a good guest on his show, but he should never have been president and he has been a disaster as president and as an ex-president. He has been ragging on Trump for years since he started his run in 2015. I think he recently trashed Trump on his show once again.

trump doesn't like it when people talk shit about him.

trump really really really doesn't like it when people who actually know him talk shit about him.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,908]

13 hours ago, Js1 said:

Tell me more about Biden being senile

 

 

"Their windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before" 

 

Seriously what the fuck? Imagine Biden saying something half that crazy

[AnTiM 1,695]

How does that go?  Ignorance is a flesh wound, but stoopid goes clear to the bone?

[Ted Lange 16,413]

36 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

"Their windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before" 

 

Seriously what the fuck? Imagine Biden saying something half that crazy

 

Here is where he got the Whales getting killed by windmill idea....shocking its from Tucker the idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bookman 4,763]

Are the whales dying of cancer?

[TeeDubya 3,362]

2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Are the whales dying of cancer?

no, but these wind farms have ruined their tv reception.

[Gatorubet 30,716]

57 minutes ago, TeeDubya said:

no, but these wind farms have ruined their tv reception.

I want to know how I can get paid by the government for not growing wind…

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,629]

Get the lady who talks to the wind and who was the source for Fox News' Dominion allegations to tell the wind we ain't gonna take any of it's shit. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,629]

P.S. Shoot the seals

['stache 22,133]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

Are the whales dying of cancer?

No, they got the "jab."

[Bookman 4,763]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

No, they got the "jab."

So they're sterile!

[Rimbo 27,018]

On 9/25/2023 at 7:33 AM, RomaVicta said:

 

Plus our constant state of war has named China as the new central enemy. Of course we're at war with China. We've always been at war with China. 

China does mean things like spy on us, put navy fleets on the seas near their coastline, try to influence other countries to gain better alliances. Things we would never do!

They want to steal our economy! They want more of the market!

Now that we all know everything about China, let's all agree that they are the new bogey man. Speak their name to the yokels and even many non-yokels and they all know what to think feel.

And let's be sure to keep pumping money into the War Department (really never should have bothered to change the name) because we like to imagine us solving our problems by invading people.

China does some sinister shit, no doubt, but are they actually an existential threat worthy of the hysteria being built around them? I sincerely doubt it.

Don't matter though. This constant state of war or near-war is a status quo that serves too many people. Trump invokes it at the dullest level to appeal to the dullest people who like black and white.

What a shit show.

To be fair, we didn't want this situation, and never did (45th president notwithstanding).

China did and does want it. China worked very hard to make this situation, with the expressed purpose of being in opposition to the USA.

A lot of your blathering here too closely resembles the sort of myopic "Only America has agency; all other countries merely respond to our actions" nonsense that idiots like Chomsky promote...

[Rimbo 27,018]

23 hours ago, YGIFS said:

What about Duck Phillips from Sterling-Cooper?  That dude sucked.  

 

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Ducks are a problem.  The Stork, however....we all thought the Stork was brain damaged.  But it turns out, he's the guy asking the important questions of our time:

 

On 9/24/2023 at 11:44 PM, Grade of D as in David said:

 

 

 

On 9/24/2023 at 9:41 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

People named Howard or Donald shouldn’t be in the public eye. 
 

same rule applies to ducks of the same names. 

 

[Grade of D as in David 13,255]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I want to know how I can get paid by the government for not growing wind…

@Brisketexan is never going to qualify for that subsidy 

[RomaVicta 30,584]

39 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

China did and does want it. China worked very hard to make this situation, with the expressed purpose of being in opposition to the USA.

1. We don't?

2. We've had fleets in their seas for decades.

3. We didn't even recognize the manifestly obvious that they were the real China until about 1970.

4. We decided to back the loser in their civil war in a new country we called China located on Taiwan.

5. We actively seek to "contain" their influence.

Of course they're in opposition to the US just as we would be in their situation. 

I don't see why every competition like this has to play out militarily. I don't read Chomsky, but if he says things like our investment in the military and arms industries sways our foreign policy judgment, then he has a point. If he says there's something strange about us having a thousand military bases far from the US, he has a point.

Read an Indigenous People's History of the United States for some interesting perspective on how we operate.'

Or just condemn another writer wholesale as an intellectual shortcut. Your call.

I'll cease blathering here.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,551]

Well, you'll forgive us if we don't all hop on the pro-China bandwagon.  

[RomaVicta 30,584]

I'm hardly pro-China. I mainly don't like the way we break things down into good and evil as though everyone we face is Nazi Germany. It leads to facile foreign policy and war policy that doesn't really serve our interests.

My priority in the international world is acting in the long-term best interests of the US. I don't think what we spend on the military abroad or what we spend on foreign wars or how we face off against other countries serves our interests as often as we might think.

[Rimbo 27,018]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm hardly pro-China. I mainly don't like the way we break things down into good and evil as though everyone we face is Nazi Germany. It leads to facile foreign policy and war policy that doesn't really serve our interests.

My priority in the international world is acting in the long-term best interests of the US. I don't think what we spend on the military abroad or what we spend on foreign wars or how we face off against other countries serves our interests as often as we might think.

No, but you are talking like a tankie. You're trying to overcorrect for one unbalanced point of view by adopting another.

Saying "manifestly obvious that they were the REAL China" skirts around what is, in reality, an incredibly weird (and IMHO, funny) foreign policy issue.

[RomaVicta 30,584]

What overcorrection do I even advocate? What correction do I advocate?

What's a tankie?

It's a funny foreign policy issue that has us entangled in what should be an internal matter of China.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

40 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

1. We don't?

2. We've had fleets in their seas for decades.

3. We didn't even recognize the manifestly obvious that they were the real China until about 1970.

4. We decided to back the loser in their civil war in a new country we called China located on Taiwan.

5. We actively seek to "contain" their influence.

Of course they're in opposition to the US just as we would be in their situation. 

I don't see why every competition like this has to play out militarily. I don't read Chomsky, but if he says things like our investment in the military and arms industries sways our foreign policy judgment, then he has a point. If he says there's something strange about us having a thousand military bases far from the US, he has a point.

Read an Indigenous People's History of the United States for some interesting perspective on how we operate.'

Or just condemn another writer wholesale as an intellectual shortcut. Your call.

I'll cease blathering here.

Well look, Roma - I think the starting point for a lot of this is a set of premises that you may not agree with, but here goes - That
1) As Americans we benefit from the existing, rules based post WWII international order;
2) That we uniquely benefit from the economic power of the dollar as the world's reserve currency within that order;
3) That while highly imperfect, the existing international order has enabled the greatest and most extended period of global peace and prosperity in history. In other words - a random human born on this planet had a better shot at living without hunger to a ripe old age and dying a natural death with a roof over their heads in the last 80 years than at any time since the monolith showed the apes how to kill each other; and 
4) American military and economic power have been and continue to be essential to maintaining that order. 

So I get your point, but I kinda feel like you (and Chomsky, and Donald Trump) are over here saying "yeah but we're not so innocent."  Of course we aren't. We are Atlas, condemned to carry the peace of the heavens on our shoulders.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[RomaVicta 30,584]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So I get your point, but I kinda feel like you (and Chomsky, and Donald Trump

At least I'm in good company.

[nbmishoid 989]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

1. We don't?

2. We've had fleets in their seas for decades.

3. We didn't even recognize the manifestly obvious that they were the real China until about 1970.

4. We decided to back the loser in their civil war in a new country we called China located on Taiwan.

5. We actively seek to "contain" their influence.

Of course they're in opposition to the US just as we would be in their situation. 

I don't see why every competition like this has to play out militarily. I don't read Chomsky, but if he says things like our investment in the military and arms industries sways our foreign policy judgment, then he has a point. If he says there's something strange about us having a thousand military bases far from the US, he has a point.

Read an Indigenous People's History of the United States for some interesting perspective on how we operate.'

Or just condemn another writer wholesale as an intellectual shortcut. Your call.

I'll cease blathering here.

And, we built 40k or more nuclear bombs, they built 350.  We chose maximum deterrence, for bout 5 trillion bucks.   They chose minimum deterrence.   Slight difference in how the two societies roll.

[SydneyCarton 49,498]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm hardly pro-China. I mainly don't like the way we break things down into good and evil as though everyone we face is Nazi Germany. It leads to facile foreign policy and war policy that doesn't really serve our interests.

My priority in the international world is acting in the long-term best interests of the US. I don't think what we spend on the military abroad or what we spend on foreign wars or how we face off against other countries serves our interests as often as we might think.

You should ask Ukraine how they feel about our military spending. Becuase one dipshit was doing his best to dissolve NATO, and has said he intends to do that if given the opportunity again, and it was working, until Putin came along with the wrong President in office and now the case for NATO has never been stronger. 

I believe you're also failing to take into account at how China, views us; namely, it's competition for being the largest power in the world. And you'll be shocked to hear that their autocratic leader wants that and the decline of the West. Why? Becasue they want power, and we stand in the way. Now, you can say if American foreign policy were different, maybe China wouldn't view us as a threat, try to tether our economy to theirs, steal our IP, spy on us with impunity, and ramp up their own military spending. That's a pretty big maybe. But at the same time, you can't control how they view Americans, and how they portray us to their  own people, and you can't control whether or not they see us as a threat. Which means that any permanent notion that other countires are just going to be nice and loving, if we just back off and change our behavior, seems optimistic to the point of naivatee.

Most of those countries are run by autocrats and care only about their own power, and how to maximize it at all costs. For fuck's sake, Russia was a superpower in the  minds of the world and their culture decided to systemically rape and commit genocide because Ukraine had shit they wanted, and they thought the US and  the rest of the world wouldn't do jack shit about it. And they were damn near right. They've interfered with our elections, they interfere in our media, they drive hate and division in our country, they actively inerfere in Africa for profit, and they all portray the US poorly becuase it gives them more power. China does the same. 

But yeah, maybe if we were just a bit less present on the world stage they'd have decided as cultures to play nicer with us.

MichaelKeatonWank.gif.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,914]

38 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm hardly pro-China. I mainly don't like the way we break things down into good and evil as though everyone we face is Nazi Germany. It leads to facile foreign policy and war policy that doesn't really serve our interests.

 

You don't know this with certainty. In some instances, breaking things down into black/white probably does serve our interests. In other instances, it probably doesn't. Example: We've been mostly at peace since Vietnam. Even if such simplistic thinking lead to the Irag/Afghanistan catastrophe, that isn't supporting evidence/proof because, to quote Cormac McCarthy, you never know what worse luck your bad luck kept you from. 

 

[Guest]

Nine whales huh? How many died in the Valdez spill? 

[Restless Native 315]

11 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

You don't know this with certainty. In some instances, breaking things down into black/white probably does serve our interests. In other instances, it probably doesn't. Example: We've been mostly at peace since Vietnam. Even if such simplistic thinking lead to the Irag/Afghanistan catastrophe, that isn't supporting evidence/proof because, to quote Cormac McCarthy, you never know what worse luck your bad luck kept you from. 

 

Also, McCarthy--If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one gets here.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,104]

this may be a duh-est of duh statements, but that man is a walking National Enquirer. like if the pages of that rag became sentient and humanesque. that's all this dude is. 

[TeeDubya 3,362]

26 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

this may be a duh-est of duh statements, but that man is a walking National Enquirer. like if the pages of that rag became sentient and humanesque. that's all this dude is. 

Point taken, but, is the fat, orange blob of bigotry and hatred either sentient or humanesque?

[TexLonghorn 5,737]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

No, they got the "jab."

And we all know who gave it to them.

The Dr. Ouchie of the Sea...

[4th&Five 42,005]

 

[Gatorubet 30,716]

2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

because, to quote Cormac McCarthy, you never know what worse luck your bad luck kept you from. 
 

I’ve always loved that quote

[brakeman 28,750]

[GhostOfTomJoad 9,508]

I'm assuming the whole found guilty of fraud for providing false financial statements "for roughly a decade" is simply because they didn't have the time, inclination and/or need to look back at, oh...Trump's entire 50 fucking years as a conman?

[atomheartbevo 90,646]

4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't see why every competition like this has to play out militarily. I don't read Chomsky, but if he says things like our investment in the military and arms industries sways our foreign policy judgment, then he has a point. If he says there's something strange about us having a thousand military bases far from the US, he has a point.

Originally our foreign policy was the reason for the military/arms industry to be built up - we made the decision in the aftermath of WWII, with the Soviets clearly moving their chess pieces around the board and also with WWI still in the back of our minds and WWII still in the rearview mirror, to say "okay, we're going to stabilize the world order as much as possible because we can't afford these world wars" (but also because a stable world order was very good for American businesses, which were booming after the WWII buildup helped take us out of the Great Depression).

Now, you could argue that our defense industry pushes foreign policy (via lobbying Congress) at times, and it's true, but a stable world order is good for American business. We didn't build up a massive Navy after WWII because we wanted to be the world's police, but because we wanted to ship American goods around the world, and bring in raw materials from stable foreign markets. And we felt it was cheaper than going to war every 20 years.

4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

My priority in the international world is acting in the long-term best interests of the US. I don't think what we spend on the military abroad or what we spend on foreign wars or how we face off against other countries serves our interests as often as we might think.

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

1) As Americans we benefit from the existing, rules based post WWII international order;
3) That while highly imperfect, the existing international order has enabled the greatest and most extended period of global peace and prosperity in history. In other words - a random human born on this planet had a better shot at living without hunger to a ripe old age and dying a natural death with a roof over their heads in the last 80 years than at any time since the monolith showed the apes how to kill each other; and 
4) American military and economic power have been and continue to be essential to maintaining that order. 

As I said above, we spend what we spend (although it's gotten out of hand at times) because it's good for American businesses and financial investments around the world.

It's not that much different than the Roman Empire having their legions all around Europe and the Mediterranean - it's good for business.  Same goes for the Brits in the 19th Century.  And the Dutch, French, and Spanish in the centuries before them.

Isolationists like Trump and a lot of the MAGA crowd these days never step back and look at history, look at why we kept our military large (at least the Navy and what would become the Air Force), and they don't realize the (positive) financial impact it would have on our nation going forward.

I don't think the Chinese want to go head-to-head with us militarily - too much of a risk of cruise missiles getting lobbed into Beijing, as well as the fact that they aren't building up a massive blue water navy (a large chunk of their navy is meant to operate close to China), but China recognizes that the Soviets benefitted from being the second world power, and they realize that it's not enough to be the world's manufacturer (especially as they lose manufacturing jobs to other nations) and that they can take Russia's place.  And Russia's war with Ukraine has provided them the perfect opening.  There's still plenty of money to be made by being the alternate to the USA.

[YGIFS 19,458]

Just now, GhostOfTomJoad said:

I'm assuming the whole found guilty of fraud for providing false financial statements "for roughly a decade" is simply because they didn't have the time, inclination and/or need to look back at, oh...Trump's entire 50 fucking years as a conman?

Yeah, a lot of the mid to senior level people who helped him with this along the way are retired/dead.  No need to have dozens of people say, and credibly at that, "I don't recall, that was 25 years ago" and dilute your case.  When there's an army of liars and conspirators still sitting in that building who will fold in a heartbeat who still have active con evidence on their desks and hard drives from just a few years ago.  

I'm also starting to get the feeling that I may not be getting paid back on my LP investment in the building housing the cattle for Trump Steaks.  I should have known when the Capital Call came in for gold-trimmed feed troughs.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,104]

2 hours ago, TeeDubya said:

Point taken, but, is the fat, orange blob of bigotry and hatred either sentient or humanesque?

definitely humanesque in the strict since here because no human has ever looked like that. as far as sentience, maybe it's a stretch but if the basest definition implies knowledge of oneself, well, that's the only thing he knows. Like De La Soul famously said, "He, himself, and him." or something like that

[AnTiM 1,695]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Wake the fuck up, CNN.  This has been going on for a lot longer than ten years, forty at the least that I know of.

[Ted Lange 16,413]

This should really help him try to flip Michigan

 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30,716]

The simulation seems to be on path. 

[YGIFS 19,458]

FUPA pack like a fanny pack?  Or he wore the fanny pack on the inside of his pants instead of the outside?  Or it's a buncha classified paper he forgot to flush as he zipped up his pants?  I mean, I hate to ask...but I've never learned for sure...is that photo real or...?

[Gatorubet 30,716]

9 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

FUPA pack like a fanny pack?  Or he wore the fanny pack on the inside of his pants instead of the outside?  Or it's a buncha classified paper he forgot to flush as he zipped up his pants?  I mean, I hate to ask...but I've never learned for sure...is that photo real or...?

Depends….

[Grade of D as in David 13,255]

I mean he wears lifts in his shoes. He's probably stuffing as well.

[WhatTheBuck 28,929]

1 hour ago, AnTiM said:

Wake the fuck up, CNN.  This has been going on for a lot longer than ten years, forty at the least that I know of.

I think you should be addressing the judge, not CNN.